THE SUBVERSION OF ROBERT PARSONS His confused and worthless work, ENTITLED, A treatise of three Conversions of England from Paganism to Christian Religion.  
1. Tim. 1.  
conversi sunt in vaniloquium.  
They are turned unto vain jangling.  
LONDON, Printed for JOHN NORTON. 1606.   

TO THE RIGHT Honourable the Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor of England.  
THE show of antiquity in matters of religion being so plausible to the multitude, and so sorcible to persuade the simple; I marvel not, my good Lord, if our adversaries the Papists, who show themselves also adverse to truth, do both commonly and willingly entitle their erroneous doctrines concerning the worship of Saints and Images, the Pope's indulgences, Purgatory, and all their traditions and trash, though never so new, the Old Religion. Your Lordship also well knoweth, what pains Parsons the jebusite hath taken in his books of Three Conversions, to prove, that the ancient inhabitants of this land were converted to that religion, which is now professed and taught at Rome, not doubting, but if he can prove it so ancient, that the same will soon be admitted as true, as being derived from the Apostles, and most ancient and sincere Bishops of Rome.  
Having therefore commiseration of the ignorance of seduced Papists, and willing to consirme good Christians in the truth, and to arm the weak against the assaults of such seducers, I have undertaken to examine his whole discourse concerning the three supposed conversions of England, wherein Parsons endeavoureth to prove the antiquity of Popish religion within this Island, seeking from the true religion professed here to bring us back to the heresies and captivity of Rome, more odious far then that of Babylon. And this I undertake not because he deserveth to receive any long or curious answer, but rather to show. his consorts, that he bringeth nothing, which cannot easily be answered.  
Some do esteem the book very much in regard of the strangeness and novelty, promising not only a narration of the planting of religion in England by Austin the Monk, but also a confirmation of the history of King Lucius, and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, and new tidings of a new conversion of Britain wrought by S. Peter himself: matters of which many will be glad to hear. But he that diligently peruseth what he hath written, shall soon lose all his longing. For whether we consider the subject of this discourse, or the manner of handling the same, there is nothing that can any way satisfy the reader. The proofs stand upon conjectures. The author's style is harsh and uneven. His rehearsals thick and tedious. His purpose fond & foolish. Three things he striveth to prove. First, that this land was thrice converted to religion by preachers sent from Rome, viz. by S. Peter, Eleutherius, and Austin. Secondly that the same was converted to no other religion then that, which is now preached and maintained at Rome. And thirdly that therefore we are now to learn religion, and to receive direction and government from thence. But the first is very evil performed. For of the first conversion by S. Peter he is scarce able to bring any conjecture. 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 prove either his Tridentine, or Decretaline doctrine concerning the Pope, the Mass, the seven 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 travaileth in vain. For why should England be more subject to Rome for receiving the Christian faith from thence, then Rome to Jerusalem, from whence the sound of the Gospel went into all lands? In the second part of his three Conversions he seemeth to make great inquiry for our Church and religion in former times. But when he cannot deny, but we hold all the Christian faith either taught expressly by the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church, or explained in the six general Counsels; and do only condemn the corruptions of later time brought in by the Decretals and Schoolman's frapling disputes; he showeth himself a blind searcher, that can neither see, nor find our faith and Church before these late days. Physicians say, that melancholic men are much subject to dreams. Melancholici saith one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It seemeth therefore, that Parson's writing this book of three Conversions, wherein so many dreams and fancies are contained, did overflow with melancholy. But writing the second part of his treatise it seemeth, that he was in a dead sleep, and had his senses so bound, that he could neither feel, nor see any thing. In time past, they say, he was able to write well: but now his books are like the coins, of which one in Plautus talketh. The last are the worst.  
And this I doubt not to make to appear in this my answer, the which I make bold to present to your Lordship, as a testimonial of my thankfulness, and a pledge of my affection & love. And the rather, for that, as your Lordship hath been a principal helper to free me of my troubles, so you may first taste of the fruit of my travails. It is more than a year since I first framed this treatise, but could not publish it by reason of my other occasions and disturbances. But now that your bountiful favours have given 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 giver into your protection. And so I shall be more free to do God service, and more willing to employ myself for his Church, and always rest  
Your Lordship's most ready to be commanded Matthew Sutcliffe.   

The preface to the Christian Reader.  
IT is an old trick of heretics, Christian Reader, to grace their lewd opinions with fair titles. Sub falso praetextu & specie pietatis, saith Constantine 
a Euseb. de vit. Constant. lib. 3. ca 62.  speaking to heretics, semper delinquentes, omnia contagione vestra contaminatis. So Parsons, albeit he talketh of popish religion, which is nothing else but a mixture of judaism, Paganism, and Heresy; yet doth he give out, that he contendeth for Christian religion. Again albeit the Mass, wherein the whole service of God (according to the opinion of Papists) consisteth, be but a late patchery, and their popish opinions mere novelties, and strange fancies; yet would he make men believe, that the Mass was instituted by Christ, and that these new doctrines were taught by Peter and the rest of the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus. In his Epistle Dedicatory he calleth the English Papists the offspring, and children of the first professors of Christianity in this Island. And yet no children could further degenerate from their ancestors, than the modern Papists from the ancient Christians, as by many particulars may be demonstrated. Their faith concerning the foundations of Christian religion, concerning Christ's office, and human nature, concerning the Church and Sacraments, concerning the ministry and policy of the Church, nay concerning the Law and the Gospel, is altogether different from that faith which the first Christians of this Island professed. And were not the difference so great as we find it, yet what needed this babbling fellow to search antiquity for proof of his three imagined conversions of the ancient inhabitants of our country to Christian religion? Let him show, that the doctrine of popery which we refuse, is Christian religion, and that it was first taught by Saint Peter in Brittany, or otherwhere, and that will suffice without more ado.  
But herein the poor fellow faileth most grossly. Nay where he needed not, blindly he plungeth himself into divers difficulties, offering to prove, that the ancient inhabitants of this land were converted unto Christian religion by S. Peter, Eleutherius, and the Monk Austin: matters far beyond the reach of his ability, and impertinent. For neither doth he prove, that the Britaines were thrice by them converted, nor would it advantage his cause being proved, 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 Island.  
The which, that it may evidently appear, I have for thy better satisfaction thought good to examine this whole treatise of three Conversions, in volume big, in value small, in discourse idle, in proofs weak and simple, and altogether unworthy any long answer, were it not that some men suppose, that he hath said somewhat, where God wot his whole treatise is nothing but vain talking, and tedious discoursing to no purpose. Eadem atque eadem saepe dicit saith Augustine epist. 86. of such an idle writer, aliud non inveniendo quod dicat, nisi quod inaniter, & ad rem non pertinens dicit. But with better reason may this be said of this prattling jebusite, which repeating the same things often, yet findeth nothing to serve his purpose, but that which overthroweth the purpose of the author.  
In his Epistle Dedicatory he giveth the title of Catholics to English mass-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 testimony of a bastard shall never make bastard professors true Christians. Further it is not like, but his provision will fail him before the end of his journey, that beginneth so impudently to beg at his first setting forth, and so presumptuously to take for granted matters in controversy. Finally, under the name of the Christian catholic faith, he goeth about to commend the corruptions and trash of the Romish church, as the Macedonian heretics did their heretical poison. Venenum melle illitum, nempe catholico nomine superinducto propinabatur saith Athanasius ad Serap.  
He showeth reasons of his dedication, but all false. For neither shall he ever prove, that Papists profess the Christian catholic faith first planted in England, nor derive their pedigree from the first Christian Britain's, or Saxons. His best reason is either forgotten or overslipped, viz. that such patcheries are most properly due to such patrons.  
Against true Christians he inveigheth with open mouth, as if they were heretics, and intruders on the right of the catholic church. But that is a common practice of men of his sort, to fall to railing and lying, when by truth they cannot stand. Hierome in his 2. apology against Russine, speaking of Heretics, convicti de perfidia saith he ad maledicta se conferunt. And Constantine 
a Euseb. de vit. Constant. lib. 3. ca 63.  directing his words to heretics, chargeth them with vain lies. Cognoscite saith he, quibus mendacijs vestrae doctrinae inanit as implicata teneatur.  
In favour 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 ecclesiastical tribunals. But if by Parliaments he mean general Counsels, he abuseth his clients, and all the world. For it were great simplicity, if upon his word they should suppose, either that Popery is authorized by ancient general Counsels, or that the late conventicles of Lateran, Constance, Florence and Trent ordered by the Pope's direction were lawful Counsels. He doth also err grossly, if he affirm it. Finally he contradicteth his own holy father's pleasure, if he affirm the Council to be above the Pope, and the highest tribunal on earth.  
The words of the Apostle, Philip. 1. he applieth to such Papists as have been of late time called in question for treason and felony, as if they did not only believe in Christ, but also suffer for him. Whereof the second is evidently false, as public records testify; the first is doubtful, seeing heretics cannot be counted true believers.  
Likewise he abuseth other scriptures 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thess. 1. and Isa. 1. like the Valentinians, endeavouring to wrest the sacred word of God to his own fancies, and fabulous discourses. Aptare volunt saith Irenaeus lib. 1. advers. haeres. ca 1. fabulis suis eloquia Dei. Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. and 1. Thess. 1. speaketh of true Christians, that followed Christ jesus, and his Apostles: this jebusite talketh of such, as follow Antichrist, and hearken to the jeud persuasions 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 conceal the stirs that have been in England between the secular priests, and the jebusites, although good it were for him, that they were never remembered, he being convinced by the testimony of his own followers in divers discourses written of this argument, to be a Machiavelian, 2 traitor, and a devil. Here also he applieth the words meant of our Saviour, Matth. 8. to Antichrist the destroyer, as if he rising up could command winds & seas, and cause calms; who indeed rather causeth storms, then calms; wars, than peace; and is the firebrand of troubles throughout all Christendom. Further he entitleth him Christ's substitute. But his outrageous persecutions of God's saints, show him to be Christ's adversary, rather than substitute. Commission or act of substitution he showeth none. But of the other we find divers arguments Dan. 8. and 11. 2. Thess. 2. Apocalyp. 13. and 17. which in my books de pontiff. Rom. are at large declared.  
In an addition to his epistle he triumpheth over Queen Elizabeth of pious memory, and raileth at her, as a persecutor, whose clemency her greatest enemies cannot choose but acknowledge: and he among the rest, if he were not ungrateful. But herein the heathen Philosophers do accuse him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Homer odyss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And another, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Herein therefore the proverb is verified, that Hares insult over dead Lions. If he had not been a renegade Christian, and fugitive traitor, he would never have compared her to julian the apostate, or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant. Neither if he had been wise, would he have mentioned these two examples, himself in apostasy being like the one, and the Pope in cruelty and pride far surpassing the other.  
From railing he falleth into a vein of flattering the King, whom he compareth unto Constantine. And yet not many years since, in his most traitorous book of titles he sought to deprive this Constantine of the crown of England, and to convey the same to the Infanta of Spain, who now condemneth the glozing companions flattery. And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him, and his whole house. Thus with the time this jebusite 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 saith writing against Auxentius, unum 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 dishonour him, comparing his royal Majesty to divers not yet converted to Christianity, and implying, that the King is no Christian.  
He talketh of the King's preservation; yet may we probably suppose, that he had a finger both in Percies treason discovered in November last, and in Clerks and watson's practise executed at Winchester not long since, for intending the destruction of the king's Majesty, and the subversion of the realm, as appeareth by a public edict against them.  
In commending the King's book, he condemneth his religion: as if any could be more dishonoured, then by imputation of want of religion. Again he contradicteth himself, commending the king for fervent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God, and godliness: and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity, and inanity of sects and heresies, where no ground, no head, no certain principle, no sure rule or method to try the truth can be found. Which his vain and idle sconce shall never either justly impute to that religion, which his Majesty professeth, or cleanly avoid in that sect, which he followeth, being a pack of impieties, blasphemies, heresies, novelties, uncertainties, contradictions, absurdities and fooleries. The first we verify by divers treatises written in defence of our religion, wherein we declare, that the same is not only built upon the immovable rock Christ jesus, the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witness unto it, and full of sincere wisdom; but also approved by Counsels, Fathers, consent of nations, miracles, yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages. The second is evident by the school doctrine of the Mass, of the Sacraments, of the Pope, of Purgatory, Indulgences, works of supererogation, and such like. For what more impious, then to say, that Christ's body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist? What more blasphemous, then to give God's honour to stocks, stones, and to Antichrist? What more heretical then to destroy Christ's human nature, and office, and to worship Angels, Saints and Images? What more new than the doctrine of Constance, Florence, Trent, concerning the massing sacrifice, the communion under one kind, the subsisting of accidents without substance, indulgences and such like? What more uncertain, then popish religion, that dependeth upon the Pope's determination, a man oftentimes blind, unlearned, and variable? What more contradictory than that Christ's body should be both visible and invisible, above and below, dead and alive at one time? What more absurd then to limit the catholic church within the diocese of Rome, or to say with the Donatists, that it is perished out of the whole world, save in one corner of the Romish church? Finally what more foolish, than the apish toys of mass-priests at the altar, of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches, and such like superstitious ceremonies?  
In his Preface he endeavoureth to prove, that man is mutable, by his own example, that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conversions. But that is little for his credit, or the credit of his cause. For what if he turn like a weathercock, and renounce religion? would he have all his countrymen to prove apostates like himself? Truth also is constant, and always like itself. But falsehood varieth, and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood. Nova ipsa rursum innovata emendatione scindis, emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas, saith Hilary to Constantius. The like we may say to this motley and changeable jebusite, who being uncertain in his resolution, and leaving matters formerly purposed, brought forth matters never designed, for a calf presenting his readers with a hedgehog. Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholic Religion, & condemneth the sluggishness of them, that are careless in this behalf. But his words are contrary to the Romish practice, that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence, and maketh it mortal sin for a lay man to dispute of religion. Much, certes, it were to be wished, that men would do as he saith, for than should Christians easily espy the juggling of Papists, and see, that popery is not Catholic, as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England. Dagon cannot stand before God's Ark, nor darkness continue, when light appeareth.  
To prevent perilous courses, and to give light, where certainty of religion lieth, he saith he hath framed his treatise of Three Conversions. But alas, the poor idiot is so far from proving the certainty of his religion, as the East is from the West. For what assurance can he have of religion, who doth believe neither Prophetical, nor Apostolical writings, nor other article of faith without the Pope's resolution, and for his proofs allegeth Simeon Metaphrastes, Surius, Baronius, and other fabulous writers, and vain and uncertain traditions, of which he hath no certainty? Again his pamphlet of Three Conversions doth principally handle matter of history, and not matter of faith or doctrine. Lastly, he doth rather seek to draw men into danger both of soul and body, by seeking to bring God's people back to the thraldom of Babylon, then to keep them from any danger. Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised. In this preface, I confess, he compareth the Church to a mansion house, and several points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same, promising that he will make proof, 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 between the Church, and a mansion house: the Church being a mystical body, and being scattered here and there, and not being appropriated to any family, city, or nation: and a mansion house being a civil and artificial building situate in one place, and belonging to one family or sort of people. Secondly several points of doctrine are rudely compared to several parcels ofland, which are corporeal, 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 gross similitudes depraved such matters, as were well spoken, as saith Athanasius orat. 4. contr. Arian. Incorporalia saith he, corporaliter excipientes, quae probè dicta erant, depravarunt. Thirdly neither shall he ever prove, that the right of the Church belongeth to the Pope and his adherents, nor shall he exclude us from the precincts of the true Church, howsoever in his Luciferian pride he do here despise and scorn us. His marks of Antiquity and Succession are neither the proper notes of the Church, nor were they so to be taken, can he, if by succession he mean descent of true doctrine, either take them from us, or give them to the Pope's adherents, who rather belong to the synagogue of Satan, then to the Church of God.  
In the latter end of his preface he taketh upon him the person of a Doctor, and layeth down four points of consideration about matters of faith. The first is, that our articles of faith are above man's reason. The second, that they have sufficient arguments of credibility. The third is, that it behoveth us to have a pious affection. The fourth is, that some articles of our faith may be demonstrated and known by force of human reason. But first, he showeth himself a vain and arrogant companion, that in matters where he is party, taketh on him to be a Doctor, not distinguishing betwixt a bar, & a Doctor's chair. Secondly, all thèse school-points are matters far distant from the argument of Three Conversions, which he undertaketh to handle. For I hope he will not affirm, that his Three Conversions be matters of faith. Thirdly, his first and last point contradict one another. For if all the articles of our faith are above man's reason, as he saith, 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 showeth us, that the natural man understandeth not the things of the spirit of God. Fourthly, by pious affection he absurdly understandeth a good opinion of the Pope and his slaves the jebusites, and mass-priests. But how can Christians have a good opinion of them, whom holy Scriptures declare to be false teachers, and upholders of the kingdom of Antichrist, and experience declareth to be professed enemies of piety and godliness? 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 Conversions, as that all matters thereby may be cleared. For neither doth his treatise properly concern matter of faith, nor hath he done such glorious acts, as he braggeth of. Finally these points do little relieve Parsons. For if we are to talk of matters of religion with great reverence and submission, then are the writings of the Schoolmen scandalous, that dispute pro and contra in all matters of religion. Parson's also dealeth very lewdly, who attributeth more to Philosophical demonstrations, then to arguments inducing us to believe matters of religion. Next if there be matters sufficient in religion to induce us to believe, then are not the articles of Popery to be believed, we having more inducements to reject them, then to believe them. Thirdly if matters are to be scanned before they be received, as Parsons inferreth; then most blind are the Papists, that believing the Pope and his adherents to be the Church, drink up all the abominations, which the whore of Babylon doth present unto 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 serenity of mind, why are Papists forbidden to read our books, to hear our reasons, nay without licence to read the Scriptures? Why do they condemn them, whose cause they refuse to hear or know? Lastly this his treatise of Three Conversions is not such a brave piece of work, as he imagineth, nor shall he gain any one jot ofhi cause thereby. For first; it is either false that the ancient Britain's were converted by S. Peter, and Eleutherius, or else very doubtful. Likewise it is a matter questionable, whether Austin the Monk, or some other did first convert the Saxons to the Christian faith.  
Secondly, admit the ancient Britan's had been converted by S. Peter, and by Eleutherius, and the Saxons by Austin the Monk; yet this maketh nothing for Pope Clement the 8. or Paul the fifth, that is, no more like to Peter nor Eleutherius, than a Cheshire cheese to the bright Sun. Peter was a holy Apostle, and fed Christ's sheep, Eleutherius was a godly Bishop, and preached the Gospel, which Clement and Paul the fifth doth not. Again Clement and Paul the fifth challenge two swords, and have a temporal Kingdom, which those two never had, nor challenged. This Clement and Pope Paul maintain many heretical doctrines established in the Pope's Decretals, and late Popish conventicles, which neither S. Peter, nor Eleutherius, nor Austin ever heard of. Finally neither are the Romans subject to the Bishops of Jerusalem, although the Gospel first came to them from thence, nor owe we ought to Rome, albeit those that first converted the Britain's and Saxons had come from thence. To those that first taught us we are obliged to render thanks. But Parsons like a foolish logician would thereof infer, that we are now to yield obedience to the Pope, because Peter preached first in Britain. He might as well infer, that the Romans are to be subject to the Turk that sitteth at Jerusalem, for that the Gospel came first to them from thence.  
Thirdly those exceptions which he taketh to us and our Religion are most vain and frivolous, as the discourse ensuing shall declare. Wherefore, as we have already ripped up his rude and ragged epistle, advertisement, and preface; so now, God willing, I purpose to discover the unsufficiency and foolery of the rest of his frapling discourse. I do not think thou shalt find a book of that bulk so void of all proof, or good matter, unless it be some that proceedeth from the same author.  
Read therefore I beseech thee both our writings with indifferency, and judge according to equity, and so shalt thou hereafter be made more wary in esteeming such huge volumes fraught with nothing but idle tales, gross lies, loose collections, and to say all in one word, jebusitical and Popish vanity and foolery, and learn to discern shadows from substance, and errors from truth.   

The Subversion of Rob. Parsons his babylonical Tower, entitled A Treatise of three Conversions.  

CHAP. I. Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospel in Britain, or no.  
IN this controversy betwixt our adversaries and us, about the first conversion of the ancient Britain's and Saxons to Christian religion, three points are principally to be considered, & resolved. First, whether the Britain's were first converted to the faith by S. Peter, and by Eleutherius, and the Saxons by Austin the Monk. Secondly whether these three, or any one of them taught that faith, which now the Pope and his adherents profess, and we refuse. And thirdly what the modern Church of Rome can challenge of us, by any favour done to our ancestors by them.  
Robert Parsons boldly affirmeth, that the ancient Britain's were converted 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 conversion supposed to be wrought by Peter we deny. Of the second we have cause to doubt. Of the third our adversaries have no cause to boast.  
He impudently avoucheth, that these three taught the same doctrine, which the church of Rome now holdeth, and which we refuse. We wonder at his impudence, and laugh at his folly, that attempteth to prove any such matter.  
Thirdly upon these supposed conversions he concludeth, that England and Englishmen have particular obligation to 
a Part. 1. ca 1.  the church of Rome above other nations. He would have said, if he durst for shame, that therefore we are to be subject to the Romish church, and to receive her doctrine & trash, I would say, traditions. We say, that we owe nothing but hatred to the Popes, and later church of Rome, having received nothing from thence, but wrongs, and disgraces, and loss. If any thing we owe, it is to those, which took pains to preach the true faith among us, and not to the Romanists and their agents, that now go about to turn us from the faith, and to destroy his Majesty, and our country by treason.  
That S. Peter never preached the Gospel in Britain these reasons are sufficient to persuade us. First, it is apparent Galat. 2. that the preaching of the Gospel to the uncircumcised was committed unto 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 jews dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Asia and Bythinia doth prove it true. How then is it likely, that S. Peter leaving the circumcision committed to his charge, should preach to the uncircumcision committed to others charge? Or how could he, that preached to them in Asia spare so much time, as to make a journey to preach to them in Britain? Again can any man think, if he had preached to the Britain's at the time of the writing of the first and second epistle, that he would not as well have mentioned them, as the Eastern nations? That the second epistle was written to the same persons to whom he had directed the 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 little before his death. It cannot therefore be surmised, that he preached to the Britain's after the writing of this epistle, nor that he would neglect them more than others, if at any time he had preached to them.  
Secondly if Peter preached the Gospel in Britain, either he preached in Claudius the Emperor his days, or under the reign of Nero. And so some of our adversaries say he preached under the reign of Claudius, as Baronius, some under the reign of Nero, as Eisengrenius in his Centurics. But Eusebius in Chronico saith, that after his coming to Rome he preached the Gospel there, and continued Bishop 25. years. ubi evangelium praedicans saith he, 25. annis eiusdem urbis Episcopus perseverat. Baronius anno Christi 58. relateth, how Peter, being expulsed out of Rome by Claudius, preached to the Western nations. But Onuphrius in annotat. ad vitam Petri saith, that being expulsed by Claudius out of Rome, he went not westward, but eastward, and returned first to Jerusalem, where he was present at the Council at Jerusalem, and afterward sat 7. years Bishop of Antioch. Ibidem, saith he, 7. annis usque ad Claudij obitum, & Neronis imperium permansit. The report also of his 25. years continuance in Rome is imprebable. For if he were martyred, as some say the 13. as others the 14. year of Nero, then could he not be Bishop there 25. years, Paul being converted to Christ some year or more after Christ's passion, and afterward abiding in Arabia three years, and 14. years after finding Peter at Jerusalem, as may be gathered out of the words of the Apostle Galat. 2. It is not likely also, that he could suddenly go from Jerusalem to Rome, being sent to preach to all nations. The best witness of Peter's being Bishop of Rome 25. years is Eusebius his Chronicle: but he testifieth also, that he sat 25. years at Antioch, which is a plain contradiction to all stories of that matter.  
Thirdly, Peter preached in no place, but he there ordained Bishops and teachers, and founded Churches. But in Britain we do not read, that either he ordained Bishops, or founded Churches, or left any memorial of his being there.  
Fourthly, the tradition of the church, which is a part of the word of God, as the Papists believe, ascribeth the first conversion of Britain to joseph of Arimathaea and his fellows. Capgrave in his legend of joseph affirmeth, that they preached the word of God in Britain with great confidence, and this, he saith, they did the 63. year from Christ's incarnation. Anno, saith he, ab incarnatione domini 63. fidem Christi fiducialiter praedicabant. Which disproveth Caesar Baronius his tradition of Peter's first preaching in Britain anno Domini 58.  
Fiftly no one English Chronicle doth so much as once mention the coming of Peter into Britain. Is it then probable, that Simeon Metaphrastes the writer of the Greek legend, living in Greece, or Caesar Baronius the calculator of Romish traditions and legends, singing Masses at Rome, should better know what was done in Britain, than the ancient Chroniclers of the Britain nation?  
Sixthly of ancient writers of Ecclesiastical histories no one saith, that Peter the Apostle first preached to the Britain's. Neither doth any ancient father of the church mention any such matter, but rather ascribe that labour either to Paul, 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 Britain, it is not likely, that all authors would either have concealed so glorious an action, or else have attributed the same to others.  
Finally the adversaries themselves for the most part confess, that joseph of Arimathaea did first convert the Britain's to the faith of Christ. So saith Capgraue in his legend of joseph. So saith Sanders in his preface to his slanderoous book of schism. Britannos saith he, ad fidem Christi primus convertisse, primamque Ecclesiam in illa natione crexisse perhibetur josephus ab Arimathaea. Lastly Parsons himself in his late Ward-word knew no more, but of the two conversions, as he calleth them of England, the first under Eleutherius, the second under Gregory the first. Wherefore either now, or then he uttered untruth.  
The arguments and testimonies produced by Parsons to prove S. Peter's preaching in Britain, are weak and frivolous. First, saith he, 
a Part. 1. ca 1. pa. 19  of S. Peter himself, to have been in England or Brittany, and preached, founded Churches, and ordained Priests and Deacons therein, is recorded out of Greek antiquities by Simeon Metaphrastes a Grecian. But first it may be a question, how he knoweth, that Simeon Metaphrastes a Grecian saith so, and that out of Greek antiquities, seeing he poor idiot understandeth no Greek, nor hath read any Greek antiquities. he quoteth therefore Metaphrastes apud Surium 23. juny. but Caesar Baronius in his Annals quoteth Metaphr. 29. juny. Secondly he wrongeth both Metaphrastes & Surius, adding to their words. Thirdly albeit he had reported their words truly, yet neither are we to give credit to Metaphrastes, a lying pedant, living in Constantinople some 700. years agone, and writing more lies then leaves, nor to Surius a superstitious Monk, and a professed enemy of the truth. Finally neither doth Metaphrastes nor Surius name one Church founded, or one Bishop ordained by Peter, nor is Parson's able to name them.  
His second reason is derived 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 Britain. neither can the same be well understood by the islands lying betwixt Italy, France, Spain, Africa, and Sicilia, but rather some islands of the Mediterranean sea. Secondly this epistle is evidently counterfeit, and containeth a most notorious untruth. For he saith, that none did institute Churches, or teach in Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the islands between them, but S. Peter and his successors: which is clearly refuted by the preaching of Paul in Italy, of james in Spain, of Philip and Dionysius in France, and is convinced not only by the testimony of histories and fathers, but also by the infallible authority of scriptures, which testify of Paul's preaching in Rome and other places of Italy, that received no authority from Peter. The Gloss therefore to salve this sore, and to help this lie, by alius in that Chapter, understandeth contrarius. As if Innocent had said, that none did preach contrary to Peter in all those places. And Parsons to add some weight to his light argument addeth these words unto Innocentius, or his scholars, falsifying the deposition of his own witness. Finally, these words of Innocentius do not imply, that Peter preached in Britain, but some of his successors. The third testimony brought for proof of this first conversion, is taken out of one William Eisengrene his first century. But it is of no more weight, than the testimony of Isegrime the wolf in the book of Reinard the fox, the fellow being a weak author, and a party in this cause. Furthermore he plainly contradicteth Caesar Baronius. For where he saith, that Peter preached in Britain in the reign of Claudius, Sir Isegrime writeth, that he founded Christian Churches in England under Nero, if Parsons say truly. So liars confound themselves like Cadmus his brood one contending against another, and each cutting his fellows throat.  
Parsons his fourth testimony is out of Gildas de excid. Britanniae, where he saith the priests of Britain did usurp S. Peter the Apostles seat with impure foot. But this showeth, that all bishops teaching S. Peter's doctrine do sit, after a sort, in S. Peter's chair, rather than that S. Peter placed a special chair, and sat as Bishop in Britain; of which neither Gildas, nor other authentical author giveth the least signification. Saint Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 30. teacheth us, that these words spoken to Peter, Lovest thou me? feed my sheep, belong to all Bishops. cum ei dicitur, (saith he) ad omnes dicitur, Amas me? pasce oves 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 have their sea, which are termed their successors.  
Fiftly he allegeth the testimony of Alred Rienual a Cistercian Monk, recorded by Surius 5. lanuarij, who about 500: years agone, as he saith, wrote, that S. Peter appearing to a holy man, showed him, how he preached himself in England. But neither can Parson's name this holy man, upon whose credit this report dependeth, nor is any credit to be given to Surius, or to his legends, or to such feigned dreams and revelations, as he reporteth. In the mean while the Papists, if they be not wilfully blind, may see how Parsons gulleth them with lies and fables out of Simeon Metaphrastes, and Surius, and discern what a brave piece of work his treatise of three Conversions is, that is founded upon dreams, revelations and fables, testified only by authors of legends, fat crammed Monks, and professed enemies of the truth.  
Finally, in the same Chapter he discourseth of the preaching of Paul, Simon Zelotes, Aristobolus, and joseph of Arimathaea in Britain. He collecteth also some suspicions, out of Gildas, Nicephorus and others, as if the Britain's were converted by some romans, which being Christians went with Claudius the Emperor against the Britain's. But what maketh all this to prove, that the Britain's were first converted by Peter? We are hereof to conclude the contrary rather. For if mention be made of Simon Zelotes, and Aristobolus, and others of more obscure note for preaching in Britain; it is not like, that the preaching of Peter here in this Island should have been suppressed in silence, if there had been any such thing. Parson's surmiseth, that those that went with Claudius into Britain were sent thither by Peter. But that is his own foolish conceit and vain imagination. No ancient Writer doth testify any such thing. Thus than we may see, that all Parsons his discourse concerning the conversion of Britain by S. Peter is subverted, and brought to nothing. Let us therefore consider, what is to be thought of the other two supposed conversions.   

CHAP. II. Of the pretended conversion of Lucius king of Britain, and of the British nation, to Christian religion by Eleutherius bishop of Rome, and his agents.  
The report of the conversion of the Britain's, and their king Lucius unto the faith of Christ, although believed by Parsons and the Romanists, as an article of their convertible faith; yet for many just respects may well be called into question. First the name of Lucius seemeth rather to savour of the Latin, then of the British language. Neither can it be said, that he received this name in baptism. For he is so called before he was baptised as well as after, neither doth any Author mention this change of name.  
Secondly, about this time, when Lucius is said to have reigned king of Britain, and long before, the romans, as histories report, had brought the whole country under subjection, and into the form of a province, which admitteth no king. Beda de gestis Anglor. lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Claudius the Emperor saith, that in few days he brought most of the Island under his subjection. Intra paucissimos dies (saith he) plurimam insulae partem in deditionem recepit. Afterward in the same book and 11. chapter he showeth, how the Romans dwelled & possessed all unto the bank cast up upon the frontiers of Scotland by Severus. Neither is it material, that after this the Britain's endeavoured to recover their ancient liberty. For under the reign of Commodus, as Capitolinus testifieth, all the stirs in Britanny and other countries were pacified. In Britannia, Germania, & Dacia (saith he) imperium eius recusantibus Provincialibus omnia per duces sedata sunt. In the times also of Domitian, and Adrian, which lived not long before Lucius his supposed reign, we read in Spartianus, that the Britain's lived in subjection to the romans. How then could Lucius in this time rule all the Island of Britain, as is supposed by the authors of this fabulous conversion under king Lucius? Baronius annal. tom. 2. anno 183. answereth, that Lucius reigned beyond the wall. But that showeth plainly, that this report, as it is recorded by Bede and Geffrey of Momoutb is utterly false. For the one reporteth, that the Britaines under Lucius were converted; the other, that all Britanny was converted from Paganism, and not a few Britain's only beyond the wall of Severus, as Baromus is driven to confess.  
Thirdly, no authentical authors make mention of this story. The first spreaders of this report seem to be Damasus in his pontifical, and Bede in his story de gestis Anglorum, and Ado. Whereof the first deserveth little credit among the papists. The second reporteth too many things by hearsay. The third is a fabulous Writer. From them, it seemeth Galfridus Monumetensis, Martinus Polonus, Platina and others have borrowed this fable. The matter as the first authors report it, is no way probable. Malmesburiensis in fastis speaking of Lucius saith, he received the faith with the whole nation of the Britain's. But that is altogether improbable: for at that time the romans professing paganism ruled almost all Britain. Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 4. ca 19 saith, that the preachers sent by Eleutherius did abolish paganism almost throughout all the Island. cum per totam ferè insulam (saith he) paganismum delevissent. A matter repugnant to all authentical histories, which testify that the Romans, that then ruled in Britain, and a great part of the world beside, professed and maintained paganism, until the reign of Constantine. The same man saith further, that in the whole Island there were 28. Flamines, or principal priests, and three Archiflamines, and that king Lucius in the place of Flamines appointed Bishops, and for Atchistamines substituted Archbishops. But these are also matters never before heard of. For neither had Lucius power over the whole I'll, as before is declared, nor had the Britain's any such Flamines, or Archiflamines, nor among the romans, that had Flamines, were any Archiflamines appointed over Flamines. This history therefore of king Lucius may well be paragoned with the tales of king Arthur, Sir Tristram, and Lancelot du lac, or of Gregory the Pope de gestis Romanorum ca 81. or of Rowland and Oliver in the legend of Romish Saints.  
Fourthly, there is great variance betwixt the reporters of this narration, especially concerning the time, when it should be done. Baronius saith, Lucius was converted during the reign of Commodus the Emperor of Rome anno Dom. 183. Beda saith it was under Marcus Antonius Verus, anno 156. Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 5. cap. 1. saith, Lucius died the year of our Lord 156. So that he must needs be converted some time before. Martinus Polonus writeth, that he was baptised anno Christi 188. Marianus Scotus accounteth it done anno Christi 177. Lily referreth this act to the year of Christ 181. And Lanquet to the year 180. an old Chronicle written in the Saxon language and found in the archives of Peterborough saith, that Lucius wrote to Eleutherius anno Christi 167. To conclude, Nennius saith, that Lucius wrote to Evaristus anno 164. and maketh no mention of Eleutherius. Likewise some report, how the king was converted, without mentioning the conversion of his people, as Beda.  
Others testify, that the whole Island was then almost cleared from paganism, as Galfridus Monumetensis lib. 4. hist. Brit. cap. 19  
Sanders in his preface to his railing libel de schismate Anglicano saith, a great part of the people was then converted.  

a In Eleutherio.  Platina telleth us, how in stead of 25. Flamines there were so many Bishops created in Britain, and in the place of three Archiflamines, three Archbishops were substituted.  
But Galfridus setteth down 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 embassage to Eleutherius, as Baronius tom. 2. anno Dom. 183. Galfridus hist. Brit. lib. 4. cap. 19 saith, Eleutherius sent Faganus and Dwanus, and with him consenteth Ponticus Virunnus. Malmesburiensis lib. de antiq. Glaston. Eccles. calleth these messengers Phaganus and Deruianus. The history 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 itself, how can we believe the narration concerning Lucius to be true, that is so diversly reported? Again, if the king only, or some few with him were converted to Christianity in the time of Eleutherius, then was religion rather continued, and enlarged by his agents, than 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 indeed converted to Christian religion about the time reported in the story: yet it seemeth, that those that converted the king were rather Britain's, than romans. That is apparent first by the testimony of the Annals of Burton cited by Caius lib. 1. de antiq. Acad. Cantabrig. which affirm, that divers Doctors of Cambridge were baptised anno 141. But what should they need to send for Romans, when they had Christian Doctors among themselves? Secondly, the same is proved by the history of Landaffe alleged likewise by Caius, which testifieth, that Eluanus and Meduinus, that were sent to baptise Lucius were Britain's. Thirdly, the sound of the names of those which were sent to Lucius, doth rather declare them to be Britain's then Romans'. For whether we call them Eluanus and Meduinus, or Phaganus and Deruianus, or Faganus and Dwanus; they will hardly be drawn to sound like Latin. Finally Capgraue in josepho, Malmesburiensis in hist. Glaston. and Caius in his book of the antiquity of Cambridge do declare, that Christianity once planted by joseph was always continued in the land by those, which succeeded him. What then needed the Britain's to run to Rome to fetch a commission to baptise the king, unless it were to win a little glory by the reputation, which the Romans then had in the world?  
Again, albeit we should grant, that they were Romans that baptised king Lucius; yet what glory can hereof redound either to Eleutherius, or to the Romans? For Eleutherius neither preached to the Britain's, nor once moved a foot from Rome. Neither could those romans that are said to be sent into Britain, speak the language of Britain's, or teach them Christianity. Nor is it so great a matter to baptise king Lucius, who, if ever 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 devised by some favourers of the Church of Rome, that endeavour to draw all nations to like that sea, as the fountain of many favours: and yet it is neither probably related, nor maketh any thing to the purpose, for which it was first forged, and afterwards by divers related and enlarged.  
Let us then see what Rob. Parsons is able to make of this matter. First he saith, that these two conversions under two famous Popes of Rome, (viz. Eleutherius and Gregory) are acknowledged 
1 Part. 1. cap. 4.  and registered by the whole Christian world. But what is this to the purpose, if it were true, seeing neither of them did much cooperate in the conversion of the Britain's and Saxons? And being false, who doth not see, that the notorious impudency of this jebusite deserveth to be censured of all the Christian world? Caius for his principal proof of the baptism of king Lucius allegeth letters patent of king Arthur. Beda saith only, that Lucius was christened per mandatum Eleutherij, that is, by the commandment of Eleutherius. The rest that go further are writers of legends, and contemptible fellows speaking all untruth to win the Pope's favour. Of Gregory and Austin the Monk we shall speak, when their turn cometh. Furthermore, albeit Gregory and Eleutherius were Bishops, and famous men in the Church for their painful labours, and constancy in teaching the truth: what is that to the Popes of our time, that are rather Wolves, than shepherds, loiterers than labourers: infamous persecutors of Christians, than converters of Pagans to the Christian faith, maintainers of errors than teachers of truth? Parson's calleth them successors to Eleutherius and Gregory: but never shall he show, that these two called themselves Universal bishops, or Heads of the church, or took upon them to depose kings, or to give away kingdoms, or to ride upon men's shoulders, or to give their feet to be kissed. Is he not then ashamed to compare such monsters to such holy men, and to ascribe the praise of good Bishops to those, that are no Bishops, nor good men?  
2. Further he showeth, how matters passed in this conversion, 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 been lately converted from paganism to Christ, and that Marcus Aurelius then living, began to be a friend to Christians, as the Emperor's Legate in England told him, etc. sent men to Rome to demand preachers of Eleutherius the Pope, who directed to him two romans named Fugatius and Damianus. And the cause hereof he assigneth to be, for that he understood the chief fountain 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 gross 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 read of any such horrible persecutions against Christians, as he reporteth. Secondly, this sending to Rome, which Parsons imagineth to have fallen out in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Baronius referreth to the second year of Commodus. Thirdly, the conversion of two Senators Pertinax and Trebellius, by Parsons called Tretellius, is not reported by any authentical Writer. Fourthly, if Lucius were enemy to the romans, as Parsons saith, it is not likely, that an Ambassador did reside with him, or that he had any commerce with the romans. Fiftly, he sent to Rome, not to demand Preachers, but baptism, as Galfridus, Beda and Damasus testify. Sixtly, never can it be showed, that Lucius believed Rome to be the fountain of religion. For it seemeth rather to be worldly respect, then respect of religion, that moved him to send to Rome. Finally, I have before showed, that those which were sent to Lucius were Britain's, and not Romans: neither doth any authentical Writer affirm the contrary.  
3. For proof of his gross leasings he saith, that this conversion under king Lucius is testified in ancient books of the lives of Roman bishops, attributed by some to Damasus, by ecclesiastical tables and martyrologies, by Bede, by Ado Archbishop of Trevers, by Marianus Scotus, and all Authors since. But all this testification amounteth to nothing, but only to make proof of Parsons his notorious ignorance and impudency. For first the adversaries themselves give no credit to those notes, that pass under the name of Damasus. Secondly, nothing is more ridiculous, then to allege lying legends, and motheaten martyrologies for authentical proofs. Thirdly, neither doth Bede nor Damasus, nor Ado speak one word of the conversion of Britain, nor say, that Lucius was christened by any Roman. Fourthly, Ado was not bishop of Trevers, 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 story.  
4. To answer our objections concerning the great differences concerning the time, wherein this conversion is supposed to be made, and the observation of Easter after a fashion divers from the Church of Rome, he saith first, That there is no small variety found among principal Writers about principal points and mysteries of our faith, as about the coming of the Magis, the martyrdom of the Infants, the time of Christ his baptism, yea also of his passion, what year and day each of these things happened. But first he showeth himself to be a lewd and blasphemous companion, that compareth the history of Christ's passion, and of other high points of our religion, to the fable of the conversion of Britain by Eleutherius. Woe were we, if we had no better assurance of Christ's passion, and other matters of Christian religion, than Parsons hath of his supposed conversion of Britain under Lucius. Furthermore, it is one thing to vary about the times of things authentically testified in holy Scripture, to have passed, though the certain day and time be not expressed, and to vary about the times of things, of which there is no authentical assurance. Thirdly, there is no material controversy about the time of Christ's 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 conversion of Britain by Eleutherius his agents, there are manifest contradictions, insomuch, as not only the time, but the report itself is made very doubtful.  
He answereth further, and 
a Part. 1. p. 80  saith, that if it were granted, that the Britons observed Easter after the fashion of the East church, and that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospel in England; yet it proveth not, that the faith of Britanny came not from Rome. As if it were likely, that scholars in such a ceremony would dissent from their first masters, or else that Simon Zelotes were either sent from Rome, or did not aid the Britain's in their first conversion.  
Finally, he spendeth many idle words in cavilling with the Magdeburgians, and M. Fox of reverent memory. But for as much as he neither proveth, nor refelleth any thing material, we should wrong ourselves and the reader, if we should follow the gosling wandering up and down, that hath lost himself in the Labyrinth of his own fancies and fooleries.   

CHAP. III. Of Austin the Monk his coming into England, and of his preaching and proceeding here.  
FOr the sending and preaching of Austin the Monk to the Saxons, our adversaries have some better colour of reason, then for the sending of any romans by Eleutherius to the Britain's. For neither is it denied, that Gregory did send, or that Austin came to Ethelbert king of Kent. But what is all this to the purpose? For neither can the modern romans vaunt of the acts and prowess of Gregory or Austin, nor doth any advantage redound to the modern synagogue of Rome by their merits, as we shall declare anon. Furthermore neither is Gregory to be termed the Apostle of the inhabitants of this Island, nor are the Papists to make any great cracks for any thing done either by Gregory the first, or by his Legate Austin.  
That Gregory the first was our Apostle, as in Bede to flatter the Romanists he is called, it cannot be proved. For first he cannot say, as the Apostle did, Galat. 1. Not of man, nor by man. For he was not called immediately by Christ, as were the Apostles, but was ordained by bishops, and chosen by the Clergy and people of Rome, as the agents of Rome themselves confess.  
Secondly, it was not said to him, as to Christ's Apostles Matth. 28. Go teach all nations. Nor did he presume to take upon him that charge. Nay, expressly he condemned the title of Ecumenical or Universal bishop. But he was only called and ordained to govern the Church of Rome: and happy is he, if he did approve himself faithful in his calling.  
Thirdly, he had no grace of working miracles, or prophecy, as Christ's Apostles had, nor could he speak with tongues, as the Apostles did. Nay, it is apparent, that he was very unskilful both in the Greek and Hebrew tongues, which notwithstanding Saint Augustine for the understanding of Scriptures accounteth necessary.  
Fourthly, he neither preached himself, nor sent Austin to preach to the Britain's, or to the French, or other nations beside Saxons only; of all which notwithstanding the inhabitants of this country are descended.  
Finally, he preached not himself to the Saxons, nor seemed to be sent unto them, but abiding quietly at Rome, sent Austin, and other Italian Monks to preach unto them. How then is he termed the Apostle of the English, to whom he was neither sent, nor came, nor preached?  
That neither he, nor Austin deserve great praise for the conversion of the Saxons or English, it is proved first, for that Gregory himself did nothing, but send and command others, who notwithstanding were not the first converters of the Saxons. For it were absurd to think, that the Saxons having so many Christian Britain's living both among them, and near unto them, had no notice of Christian religion until the coming of Austin. That the Britain's lived among the Saxons the practice of conquerors doth show, who do not kill such as submit themselves, but rule them and command them. So did the romans in time past conquering Spain, and Gallia, and other countries. So did the Normans entering into England. And so did the Saxons also deal with the Britain's. Malmesburie lib. 1. de gest. Angl. ca 2. speaking of the Saxon king Cerdic, testifieth, that the men of the country being once overcome did willingly yield to obey him. In eius iura volentes concessêre, saith he, Likewise lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of hengist's Captains: Cum Provincialibus (saith he) congressi, profligatisque qui resistendum putaverunt, reliquos in sidem acceptos placidae quietis gratia mulcebant. Now let any reasonable man esteem, how it is possible, that the pagan Saxons conversing daily with Christian Britain's, and seeing the practice of their Rites and Religion, should neither be converted to Christian Religion, nor have any notice of it.  
Further we read, that Berta ethelbert's wife was a Christian woman, and had with her a Christian Bishop named Luidardus, by whom the king and his people could not choose but receive some notice and tincture of Christian Religion. This is plainly related by Beda hist. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 26. Antea ad eum (saith Beda speaking of Ethelbert) fama Christianae religionis pervenerat, vipote qui & uxorem habebat Christianam de gente Francorum nomine Bertam, quam ea conditione à parentibus acceperat, ut ritum fidei ac religionis suae, cum Episcopo, quem ei fidei adiutorem dederant, nomine Luidardo inviolatam servare, licentiam haberet. Capgrave in the legend of Lethardus containing divers traditions of the Romish Church speaking of this matter, calleth him Augustine's precursor, and saith, that he prepared him a way, and an entrance into the country. Praecursor (saith he) & ianitor venturi Augustini. And again: Paravit ei viam, ingressum & locum. Wherefore, as the Britain's living among the Saxons showed them a light of Christian religion, so Luidardus and Berta were the first, that prepared the heart of Ethelbert king of Kent, to receive Christian religion, and not Augustine, whose language he little understood, and whose person he accepted, no question, for his queens sake, and at the persuasion of Luidardus.  
Thirdly, although some Saxons were converted by Augustine's means, yet most of them were converted by others. Laurentius baptised the son of Ethelbert, that was a pagan. The king of Northumber's marrying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert, by her persuasion was christened by Paulinus. Erpwald the king of the Castangles received the faith by the persuasion of king Edwine. Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptised in Scotland. Many Northern Saxons were also converted to religion by the means of king Oswald and Finan a Scot Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua converted the Westsaxons. Sigbert was baptised in France, and reigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion. Peda king of Middleangles was baptised also by Finan a Scot Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris converted to Christ the South-Saxons. And all this is testified by Henry of Huntingdon. With him also agree for the most part Beda, William of Malmesburie and divers other Chroniclers. It is therefore evident, that Austin performed either little or nothing, those conversions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death.  
Fourthly, it is most apparent, that neither the French nor Britain's, of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons, were converted by Austin. Not the French, for that Austin was not sent unto them, and for that they had received Christianity long before. Not the Britain's, for that Austin was sent to Saxons, and not to Britain's. Secondly, the Britain's were Christians long before Augustine's coming into England, neither did Christianity after their first conversion ever fail amongst them, as is evident by the testimony of Bede, Capgrave and others. Not long before the arrival of Augustine many Britain's about the time of Caster being newly baptised, went out with the rest, under the conduct of Germanus, to fight against the Picts and Saxons, and obtained a great victory, as we may read in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Council assembled by Austin, and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared divers Bishops of the British nation. Thirdly, the Britain's, as Beda writeth, refused to subject themselves to Augustine's jurisdiction, and to accept his orders. Finally, it appeareth, that Austin did rather work the subversion, than the conversion of the Britain's, animating the Saxons to destroy them.  
Fiftly, Austin showed extreme cowardire in coming towards England, and hardly was persuaded to set forward, as we may read in Bede, lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speak one word of English, nor to preach, unless it were by his interpreter. Lastly, he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles, at the commandment of Gregory. But first such fear or cowardice beseemeth no Apostolic man. Secondly, faith cometh by hearing, and understanding, and not by commission or outward signs. It seemeth therefore, that Augustine's Interpreters did rather convert the Saxons, than Austin himself. Finally, what power had either the bishop of Arles, or Gregory to appoint Archbishops in England? And how cometh it to pass, that now more Archbishops are here then one, if his order had any force? That these exceptions are true, Beda will witness. Percussi timore inerti (saith he) lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potius, quam barbaram, feram, incredulamque gentem, cuius ne linguam quidem nossent, adire cogitabant. Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant. And again, cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interprete. And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas & ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem civitatis, juxta quod jussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant, Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est.  
Whatsoever then was done by Austin, the same concerned none, but a few Saxons of Kent, and such as were baptised by him. Neither did he deserve more, then is due to every minister of God's word and Sacraments, that by preaching and baptizing gaineth souls unto Christ jesus. The Normans, and Northern, and West. Saxons are nothing beholding to him. The Britain's have cause to detest his memory, and to think hardly of him for his pride, and barbarous cruelty.  
If therefore Rob. Parsons mean to gain any thing by the labours of Gregory or Austin, he must prove first, that these two did preach to the ancient Saxons, Britain's, French and other inhabitants of England. Next, that the present Pope is like unto Gregory: the malignant race of mass-priests and jebusites to Austin. Thirdly, that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations, are to subject themselves to the Churches and Bishops that sent them. And finally, if he will have us to keep unity with the modern Church of Rome, he must prove, that the same is neither departed from Christ, nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregory. If not, he doth but cast feathers against the wind, and both tyre himself with writing, and vex his reader with examining his fooleries, and idle imaginations.   

CHAP. FOUR That the modern doctrine of the Church of Rome, which the Church of England rejecteth, was either oppugned by Peter, Eleutherius, Gregory and Austin, or at the least unknown unto them.  
BUt what would it advantage Rob. Parsons, if he could prove, that either the ancient Britain's were converted to the faith by S. Peter, and Eleutherius, or the ancient Saxons by Gregory and Austin, seeing the modern doctrine of the Church of Rome, which is now rejected, was either oppugned by them, or at the least never known unto them?  
Now the Romanists prohibit holy Scriptures to be read publicly in vulgar tongues, as dark and unprofitable, and condemn those that read 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 milk of the word. And 2. Epist. 1. showeth, That they do well, that take heed to the words of the Prophets, as to a light shining in a dark place. Neither need we doubt, but that all Peter's true successors maintain the same doctrine. Gregory in Ezechiel. homil. 10. doth commend Scriptures, as meat and drink and lib. 2. Moral. as a glass. It is not likely therefore, that he would prohibit Christians to eat and drink, and to behold themselves in a glass, that thereby they may learn to inform themselves in matters of faith, and to reform their manners.  
2. Now they teach, that the holy Scriptures to us are not authentical, nor canonical, unless the Pope deliver them, and consign them. And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith, that the Scriptures do depend upon the Church; and of Stapleton in his book written in defence of the authority of the Church. But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith, that the word of the Prophets is most sure unto us. We have (saith he) a most sure word of the Prophets. And Gregory in his preface unto his Commentaries upon job, saith, that in vain we search for the writers of Scriptures, when we faithfully believe, that the holy Ghost was the author of the book. Quis haec scripserit (saith he) valdè superuacuè quaeritur, cum tamen author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Which is as much, as if he should say: that the authority of Scriptures, in regard of us, proceedeth not from the writer, much less from the teacher or propounder, but from the holy Ghost.  
3. Now the Romanists teach, that the books of the Maccabees and such like are canonical Scriptures, and equal to other books of the old Testament. But S. Peter 2. Ep. 1. where by the word of the Prophets he understandeth the Scriptures, excludeth from the rank of Scriptures of the old Testament, all books not written by Prophets, of which sort are the books of the Maccabees, being written long after the times of Malachy the last of the Prophets. Gregor. lib. 19 moral. c. 17. doth say plainly, that the books of the Maccabees are not canonical.  
4. Now they affirm, that the Pope is the foundation & head of the Church. But the Apostle Paul showeth us, that Christ is the head of the Church, and that the same is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the chiete corner stone: and we may not think, 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 uno capite (saith he) omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Neither is it credible, that Eleutherius, or Austin taught any other doctrine.  
5. When Cornelius, as we read Act. 10. did fall at Peter's feet, and adored him, Peter would not suffer it. And Gregory and Eleutherius were far from admitting men to kiss their slippers. But now the Romanists give the bastonata to those that will not worship the Pope, and ordinarily the Pope requireth adoration, and suffereth great Princes to kiss his feet. Of late some are said to have disputed, that Latria is due to the Pope.  
6. Now also the bishops of Rome have given over preaching and feeding the flock. But the Apostle Peter exhorteth all Bishops, and Elders to feed the flock, that dependeth on them. And Greg. in pastor. p. 2. saith, That all bishops take on them the office of a Preacher or Crier. Praeconis officium suscipit (saith he) quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit.  
7. Now the Popes carry themselves, as Lords over their flock, and entitle themselves Ecumenical, or Universal bishops. But Peter 1. Epi. 5. forbiddeth Elders to bear themselves, as Lords over God's heritage And Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 78. & 80. condemneth this title of Universal and Ecumenical bishop, as proud and Antichristian.  
8. Now they that take upon them to curse kings, and to raise rebellion against them, and to thrust them out of their royal seats, as appeareth by the wicked Bulls of Paul 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 Gregory the 9 and Innocent the 4. against Friderick the 2. But the Apostle Peter never cursed Nero, albeit he was a most cursed fellow, nor went about to depose him. Nay chose, he exhorteth all Christians to submit themselves to kings and governors. Likewise Eleutherius & Gregory were obedient to temporal Princes. Greg. li. 4. ep. 78. calleth the Emperor his most pious Lord, and submitteth himself even in an Ecclesiastical cause to his order. Pijssimi Domini scripta suscepi, (saith he) ut 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 Catholic Church, as appeareth by Bellarmine's discourse de Ecclesia militant. They include the same also within the precincts of the Romish Church. But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. showeth, that it consisteth of the elect, according to God's foreknowledge, dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, and other countries. Gregory in Cantic. 4. saith, that the holy Church is called hortus conclusus, that is, a garden walled round about, because it is of every side so environed with a wall of charity, 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 appear, that either Eleutherius or Austin did teach otherwise.  
10. They now teach us to doubt of our election and salvation. But S. Peter exhorteth us, 2. Epist. 1. to make our calling and election sure. Which were a most vain exhortation and request, if no man could assure himself of his salvation. Neither did Eleutherius, or Gregory, or Austin in this dissent from him.  
11. They now teach priests to offer for quick and dead, and Christians to receive the Sacrament under one kind. But Peter kept Christ's institution inviolably, which showeth, that the Sacrament is to be received under both the kinds of bread and wine, and not to be offered for quick and dead. Gregory also homil. 22. in evang. showeth, that the people received both kinds. Quid sit sanguis Agni (saith he, speaking to the people) iam non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis?  
12. They make their followers believe that Christ's natural body is really under the forms of bread and wine, although it cannot be felt, nor seen there. But Peter knew that Christ had no other body, but such a one, as might be felt and seen. And Gregory lib. 14. moral. c. 31. & 32. imputeth this as an heresy to Eutychius, that men's bodies after the resurrection should be impalpable, and invisible.  
13. They give out, that we may redeem our sins with silver and gold, buying and procuring Indulgences, and with our own satisfactions both in this life and in Purgatory. But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. saith expressly, We are not redeemed with silver and gold, but by the precious blood of Christ. Gregory likewise in Psal. 5. Peenit. saith, that our Redeemer is called excelsus, or high, because none, beside God, could redeem us out of the hands of our enemies. And lib. Moral. 9-cap. 30. Non valent virtute propria (saith he) ab humano genere supplicia secuturae mortis expleri: that is, No man by his own power can satisfy for the pains in the world to come.  
14. Now in celebration of the holy Eucharist they have added a number of prayers for quick and dead, and prayers and confessions to Saints & Angels. But the Apostles, as Gregory testifieth lib. 7. Epist. 63. did consecrate, saying only the Lords prayer. And in his time and long after the forms now used were not received.  
15. Neither Saint Peter, nor Eleutherius, nor Gregory, nor Austin did make the traditions of the Church equal to the word of God written. Nay Gregory upon the Canticles, cap. 2. saith, that in Christ alone we find wholesome meat. But if in Christ alone; than not in the Pope's traditions.  
16. None of them did ever speak unreverently of Scriptures, or call them a kill letter, or a matter of strife, or a nose of wax, or a shipman's hose, or such like, as do our adversaries.  
17. None of them did make the Latin translation of the Bible more authentical, than the original Tert. Nay Peter albeit he had the gift of tongues, yet did he not write in Latin, but in Greek.  
18. Neither did Eleutherius, or Gregory call himself the spouse, or rock of the Church, or Christ's Vicar or substitute. Nor did either S. Peter or Austin allow such proud titles.  
19 Neither did Gregory the first, nor any before him call himself King of Kings, or Supreme Monarch of the Church. Nay Gregory rather delighted in the name and title of servant of servants, 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 forms & rites, which now the Synagogue of Rome useth, were established. If Parsons will maintain the contrary, let him make proof, that the words used in the popish sacraments of Confirmation, and Extreme Unction, were known & practised in those times. Let him also show, that Priests were then appointed to sacrifice for quick & dead. Now if he cannot find these forms in the time of Gregory; he will be much more puzzeled to find them in the days of Eleutherius or Peter.  
21. The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist. 11. confesseth frankly, that he knoweth not, whether the conversion in the Eucharist be substantial, or not. Qualis sit illa conversio saith he, an formalis, vel substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio. Much more difficulty than shall Parsons find, to prove 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 spiritual. Neither Eleutherius, nor Gregory, nor Austin, ever heard, that a masspriest did either offer up Christ's body and blood really, or, as we read in the Canon of the Mass, take upon him to be a mediator for Christ's body and blood.  
23. It is impious to think, that either Peter, or Gregory, or any in those times believed, that hogs and dogs eating consecrated hosts, did with their mouths eat and swallow down into their belly the body of Christ, as the Schoolmen, and most Papists now teach.  
24. S. Peter never 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 ordered by Honorius the third, that the Sacrament should be kept in pixes, and worshipped after the modern fashion.  
25. In the Romish ordinal we find no prayers for the dead, nor any private masses, nor masses for war, peace, plagues, or for hogs and horses and such like uses. If then the same be thought to have proceeded for the most part from Gregory, and from others that succeeded him, it is certain, that these abuses came in after his time.  
26. The form of hosts and singing cakes not much bigger than a counter, and the image of the crucifix upon them, and the idolatrous worship of Latria given to them was utterly unknown in Gregory's time, and long after.  
27. The old ordinal of Rome doth show, that the confession of penitents was not made to Saints or Angels in Gregory's time, or before him.  
28. Neither in Gregory's time, nor before him, do we find, that any godly Bishop commanded, that the public Liturgy of the Church should be said in Latin, or Greek, or other language not understood by the common people, or that he suffered the Sacraments to be administered in tongues not known of the vulgar sort. Nay the Apostle Paul 1. Cor. 14. showeth plainly, that prayers in a tongue not understood are fruitless, which doctrine, no question, antiquity much respected.  
29. Now the Romanists will have all Churches to follow Rome, as their Mistress in all rites and ceremonies. But Gregory, as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. gave Austin liberty to choose out of all Churches what rites he thought most convenient. Ex singulis quibusque Ecclesijs, saith he, quae pia, quae religiosa, quae recta sunt, elige.  
30. Neither did Austin nor Gregory consecreate a Paschal lamb at Easter, after the jewish manner, or hollow water to drive away devils, and for remission of venial sins, as is now practised by the Papists.  
31. The law of auricular confession, and the necessity, and form thereof was first established by Innocent the third c. Omnis utriusque sexus. de poenit. & remis. It is not therefore likely, that that same should be practised in Gregory's time, or before.  
32. Gregory would not have 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 laudavimus, saith he, lib. 9 epist. 9 ad Serenum, speaking of images of Saints. And again, Si quis imagines facere volverit, minimè prohibe, adorare verò imagines omnibus modis devita. that is, if any will make images, foibid them not; but by all means, avoid 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 himself did think or teach, that the cross, or crucifix is to be worshipped with Latria. Austin coming to Canterbury, had a cross of silver, and the image of our Saviour painted in a table, as Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca 26. reporteth, but he saith not, that either the cross or image was worshipped with Latria, or otherwise, either by him, or by others.  
33. Both Gregory and Austin used Litanies. But neither did they pray to the virgin Mary, nor to Peter, nor Paul, nor to other Saints. Augustine's Litany, as we may read in Bede, hist. Angl. lib. 1. ca 16. was nothing, but a prayer directed to God.  
34. Gregory and Austin esteemed much the relics of Saints: yet did neither of them dig their bodies out of the graves, and put them in shrines to be worshipped, as is the fashion of papists of our time.  
35. Neither did Gregory take upon him to canonize, or uncanonize Saints, or to appoint Masses to be said, or holidays to be kept in their honour. And if this will not be proved of Gregory, much less will it be showed, that either Eleucherius or Peter ever taught or allowed any such canonisation of Saints, or Romish worship given them.  
36. Gregory allowed Purgatory (as it seemeth) for small faults, yet did he not believe, that men did satisfy in Purgatory for the temporal pains of mortal sins, nor that the bishop of Rome by his indulgences could deliver men out of Purgatory. As for Peter and Eleutherius, they never thought, nor taught, that our sins are purged by other means, then by the blood of Christ, which, as the Apostle saith, 1. john. 1. cleanseth us from all sin.  
37. That the souls of the godly are tormented by devils in Purgatory, or that the bishops of Rome by their plenary indulgences, and Bulls of jubiley could deliver souls from thence, was far from the thought of Austin and Gregory, and much more of Eleutherius and Saint Peter. These are devices of late Dopes, and frapling Schoolmen, as appeareth by the Decretals of Boniface the eight, and Clement the sixth 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 form of faith, as do the modern uncharitable powdermen papists, and their associates.  
39 far also it was from their thought, that men are predestinate to salvation, or reprobated and destined to damnation for works foreseen in them. For the Apostle Rom. 9 doth prove the contrary by the example of Esau and jacob, and addeth this reason, that the purpose of God might remain according to Election, not by works, but by him that calleth.  
40. None of them ever taught, that men are justified by marriage, or orders, or confirmation, or extreme unction, or by eating fish or such external observances, as our adversaries now teach.  
41. Nay they believed not, that christian men were justified by the works of the law, or that they could perfectly fulfil the whole law, & love God with all their heart, soul, & affection. For as the Apostle saith Rom. 4. the Law causeth wrath. Again, if man could perfectly fulfil the law, than might he live without all sin, which is the heresy of the Pelagians, as Augustine de haeres. and Hierome advers. Pelag. lib. 1. testify.  
42. Never did any of these four, or other ancient Father teach, that christian men were able, not only to fulfil the whole law, but also to do works of supererogation, and more than the law requireth: or else, that the state of perfection did consist in beggary or poverty, forswearing of marriage, and obedience to monkish rules.  
43. Finally, because it were infinite to prosecute all the singular differences betwixt Austin, Gregory, Eleutherius and Peter of one part, and the modern Popes and the jebusites on the other, I will bring all into one brief sum. 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 delivered by Gregory, Austin, Eleutherius, and the holy Apostle S. Peter; that he will be pleased of his jebusitical favour plainly to demonstrate: First, that the particulars above mentioned were by them known, believed and taught; And next, that the rest of the Romish doctrine established partly in the Pope's Decretals, and partly in the conventicles of Lateran, of Constance, of Florence and Trent, and partly professed and proposed by Pius the fourth, which the Church of England rejecteth and detesteth, differeth nothing from that form of doctrine and wholesome words, which they delivered to their hearers in their time. If he perform this, he shall show himself a great master; if not, his cause falleth, his hope of mastership perisheth, and his dreams of a Cardinal's hat, are at their last period.   

CHAP. V. A brief answer to Parsons his fond and frivolous discourse, wherein desperately he undertaketh to prove, that the faith now professed in Rome under Clement the 8. is the same, and no other, than was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past.  
Unto our arguments Rob. Parsons in his treatise of three Conversions maketh no answer. 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 turn himself into a woodcock, as to maintain his book of Three Turnings. Only, lest he should seem silent, he setteth on a brazen face, and Pag. 8. desperately promiseth to prove, that the faith of Rome is, and was all one under Eleutherius, Gregory, and Clement the 8. lately reigning. He should have added S. Peter also, if he would have maintained his argument of three Conversions. But he knew, that there is too main a difference betwixt S. Peter's catholic epistles, and Clement's uncatholike Decretals. In the process 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 up and down, like a man that hath lost his way, and is carried without direction, he knoweth not whither. In his discourse there are three main faults. First, he doth not justify all those points of popery, which are now holden by Clement the 8. at the least, if the Pops believe the modern Romish faith, nor prove them to have been believed and taught by Eleutherius and Gregory. Next, he neither proposeth his matters resolutely, nor in proving them proceedeth orderly. Lastly, he barely toucheth some points in controversy, but neither dare handle the principal matters taught by the Romanists, nor can prove that which he promiseth. And this God willing we shall demonstrate out of the man's own words, following as well as we can the file and order of his disordered discourse.  
Pag. 7. He threapeth kindness upon us, and would bear us in hand, that we dare not deny, but that both Mass and Images were in use in Gregory's time in the Roman Church and faith, and so brought into England by Augustine. But first he speaketh strangely, where he saith, Mass and Images were in use in the Roman faith. For Mass is song or said at the Altar, and Images are painted, or made in boss upon walls, 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 receiving the saving word of God. Secondly, if by the use of the Mass and Images he understand the modern doctrine and practice of the Romish Church concerning these two points, he wrongeth us, and abuseth his reader, saying we dare not deny, that the Mass and Images were in use in the Roman church in Greries' time, and so brought into England by Augustine. For by the old Romish ordinal it appeareth, that Gregory's Mass was most unlike the modern Mass of the Romanists. That form overthroweth private Masses, half Communions, prayers for the dead, the carnal real presence, transubstantiation, the real propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead, and the whole form and frame of the modern Romish Canon and Mass. Gregory also, as we have declared, absolutely condemned the worship of Images, and never acknowledged, that the Cross or Crucifix was to be worshipped with Latria. Finally, albeit Augustine named Masses, and had a cross and an image; yet it appeareth not, that his Mass was like the modern Mass, or that he worshipped the cross or the image, or planted them in the Church. Bede mentioneth no such matter, where he mentioneth them. If by Mass he mean a dismission of the people, and by the use of images understandeth an historical use of them, he relieveth his cause nothing. For neither do we contend about words, nor deny all historical use of images. To help the matter a little he saith, that Austin and his fellows entered into Canterbury in procession with a cross, and image of our Saviour in a banner. But Beda convinceth him oflying, who saith 
a Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26.  he brought Christ's image in a table. Veniebant saith he, crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam, & imaginem Domini salvatoris in tabula depictam.  
For proof, that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth us Pa. 8. & 9 to the Magdeburgians, Cent. 2. & cap. 4. de doctr. But his proof is weak, and witless. For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius, or Clement. Secondly albeit we should grant, that Eleutherius consented with all those that lived in that age in their erroneous or incommodious speeches (which notwithstanding we have no reason to believe) yet can it not thereby be proved, that he consented with Clement the 8. or Clement with him. For albeit we read in Ignatius this phrase Offerre, and Sacrificium immolare, and like phrases in Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tercullian, and Martialis, who mentioneth also Altars; yet it followeth not, that the Romish sacrifice of Christ's body and blood for quick and dead, or the modern Canon of the Mass, or Transubstantiation, and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were known to these ancient Fathers. For all those terms, which the Fathers used being taken and meant spiritually, and being understood of spiritual sacrifices, make nothing either against us, or for our adversaries Masses, or massing forms. Thirdly, although the Magdeburgians in these times complain of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men, which Parsons grossly interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine: yet they tax but few men, and say not, that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists. Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yield, let them yield for themselves: we do not in all points take ourselves bound to allow their sayings, nor find any such inconvenience in these terms, as the Fathers understood them, as the Magdeburgians pretend. Finally, Rob. Parson's must speak of more than one point of consent, or else he will show himself unwise to parallel Clement the 8. with his triple Crown 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 own folly. For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen. Dom. where he never wrote any such book; and did not understand the Magdeburgians, who use 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 every thing, that did decline, did fall away; or else, as if doctrine might be said properly to fall away, and not rather men to decline from the sincerity of doctrine.  
Afterward, Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth us, how Cyprian epist. 45. glorieth, in that his Church of Carthage in Africa, and all other the Churches under her in Mauritania and Numidia, had received 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. part Donati, had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholic, then to say, that they were daughters & children of the church of Rome. But first, this maketh nothing for his purpose, which should prove, that the doctrine of the modern church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome. Secondly most grossly doth he either mistake, or belie these Fathers, for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say, that his church of Carthage and all churches under her in Mauritania and Numidia, had received their first institution fió Rome. Nor doth he once mention Rome, but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margin, where it is plain he speaketh of the general Catholic Church. Further he doth not say, that Mauritania & Numidia were under Carthage: for they are provinces entire of themselves, and divided from Carthage, as Caesar Baronius might have informed him. All which also is made clear by the words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem agnoscerent, & tenerent. saith he, Sed quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra provincia, habet etiam Numidiam & Mauritaniam cohaerentes. Tertullians' words are these, unde nobis quoque authoritas praestò est statuta. That is, from whence we have 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 overwatched himself when he wrote these fooleries.  
Pag. 101. he goeth about to refel our argument, concluding, that there was not in Rome the same faith in the days of Eleutherius that is now, because then there was no mention or knowledge either of the universal authority of the bishop of Rome, or of the name or use 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 adjoineth the Church, leaveth out our exception against the doctrine of the Mass, and worship of Images, and putteth down only the name and use of masses, and use of images in churches. But to forbear to censure him for his juggling, let us see, 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 wills, the virginity of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth, the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Son, as from the Father, should not be admitted. But the fellow showeth himself not only impudent, but also most blasphemous, to compare such false, wicked, & impious doctrines, as Papists now maintain, to the principal and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity, and Christ's two natures, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost. For who knoweth not, that these articles are plainly proved out of Scriptures, and declared in Counsels, & received by most ancient Fathers? but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass for quick & dead, of the Monarchy and universal authority of the Pope, of Transubstantiation, and popish worship of Images, is not only not to be proved, but also to be disproved by holy scriptures. The same is also contrary both to decrees of Counsels, and authority of Fathers, as hath been declared in divers treatises of those several arguments. We only will allege some few. First then the sacrifice of the mass for quick and dead is repugnant to Christ's institution, that ordained the Eucharist to be distributed & received, and not to be offered up for quick and dead. Next to holy Scriptures, and Fathers, that say that carnal sacrifices are ceased, that the 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 spiritual and not carnal. Finally if Christ's body be not really present, nor the bread & wine transubstantiated into his body and blood, than the papists themselves must needs confess, that the Mass is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick & dead. But that is proved by the words of the institution, bread and wine being named, after consecration, by the testimony of Fathers that expound these words, hoc est corpus meum, figuratively, by the analogy betwixt the signs and things signified, which by transubstantiation is quite overthrown, and by divers other arguments.  
For the Pope's monarchy and universal authority, there is no one word in scripture, nay scriptures show, that all the Apostles were called, and authorized alike; and that is also expressly affirmed by Cyprian de simple. praelat. Furthermore, the Pope's agents cannot show either commission or practice for this authority, for more than a thousand years after Christ. Gregory, as I have showed, condemned the title of universal bishop as Antichristian; neither can it be showed, that the Pope either made laws, or ordained bishops, or judged all causes throughout the whole church, until Antichrist of the temple of God had made a den of thieves.  
Transubstantiation overthroweth the human nature of Christ's body, and supposeth it neither to be visible, nor palpable, repugneth to the words of institution, and common consent of Fathers, that declare bread & wine to remain after consecration, taketh away the analogy between the signs and things signified, and bringeth in the heresy of Eutyches.  
The worship of images is contrary to the law of God, Exod. 20. to the decrees of Counsels, to the doctrine of Fathers, and abolisheth all true religion. God forbiddeth us expressly to make either graven image or likeness, to the intent to worship it, or to bow down to it. The Council of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls. The 2. Council of Nice, though it allow some worship done to images, yet expressly showeth that Latria or divine honour is not to be given to any image. The Council of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conventicle of Nice allowing the worship of images. Epiphanius tore down a vail, that had an image of Christ, or some Saint painted on it. Gregory, as before I have showed, utterly condemned the worship of Images. Finally Lactantius lib. 2. Instit. divin. c. 19 saith plainly, There is no religion, where there is an image. Most odious therefore 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 modern Romish faith, Parsons promiseth to take two ways of proof, the one as he calleth it, negative, and the other affirmative; and by them he vaunteth, that he will make our folly to appear to every indifferent man. But whatsoever he is able to perform against us, against himself he bringeth an evident proof of his own folly. For what can be supposed more absurd, then to offer to prove an affirmative, by a negative, or contraxiwise? and yet such is Parsons his wisdom, that he offereth us this abuse. Further he seemeth not very well to understand himself, where he talketh of negative proofs. For albeit he standeth upon his denial, and resolveth to put us to prove, yet he deserveth a garland for his eminent folly, that esteemeth his own bare and blockish denial an argument, and is not ashamed to call it negative proof. His meaning is, that we are not able to show, that either the points above mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time & after, or that they came into the church afterward. And therefore he indenoureth to conclude upon the words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt. ca 24. that seeing the whole church for some time hath received the doctrine of the pope's Monarchy, the Romish mass, Transubstantiation, and the worship of Images, the same is delivered by authority of the Apostles. But first we have showed this doctrine to be contrary to the practice and faith of Christ's Church. Secondly we are able to show how every of these doctrines entered by little and little into the Church, and that long after Eleutherius his time. The Churches of Rome's primacy over other Churches began to enter by a grant of Phocas. The pope's tyranny by usurpation of Gregory the 7. The pieces of the Mass when they were added, we may see in Walafridus Strabo, Platina, Nauclerus and Polydore Virgil. Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Council of Nice got credit. Yet were these doctrines never perfected, until the late conventicle of Trent, nor could they ever be received of the whole Church. For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth the Pope's authority, nor believeth transubstantiation, or receiveth the Pope's mass, or popish purgatory, or his doctrine of Images. Nay the French at this day refuse the decrees of the conventicle of Trent, and the Emperor protested against the Synod.  
Little therefore doth Augustine help, but to confound Parsons his cause, albeit his words are not to be understood of all false doctrines, whose certain original and author is not always known, but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and government of the Church.  
But saith Parsons, Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Council of Lateran, as these words Consubstantial, Trinity, and the like in the first Council of Nice, yet the substance of the article (viz. concerning transubstantiation) was held from the beginning. And this he endeavoureth to prove by the authority of S. Ambrose, lib. 4. 5. & 9 de Sacramentis, and out of these words, Non valebit sermo Christi, ut species mutet elementorum? And again, Sermo Christi, qui potuit de nihilo facere, quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erat? But first he showeth himself a shameless creature, to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity, and of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, both being proved clearly by Scriptures, with the article of transubstantiation, that is so repugnant to Scriptures, faith, authority, and common sense. Secondly he wrongeth the famous Council of Nice to equal it to the conventicle of Lateran under Innocentius the 3 nay under the kingdom of Antichrist, & in the times of darkness. Thirdly he seemeth little to understand what passed in the Council of Nice, that supposeth that Council first to have established the article of the Trinity. Fourthly he avoucheth an untruth impudently, where he saith, the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning. For I have showed before, that the Master of Sentences knew it not. And in my books de Missa I have overthrown transubstantiation by the testimony of Ambrose. These two sentences which he allegeth out-of Ambrose, make nothing for Parsons. For he will not deny, but that species, or forms remain, where as Ambrose saith they are changed. Again, Ambrose will not have any other change in the elements, then is wrought in our regeneration, or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sons of the Prophets, 4. Reg. 6. or in the union of the two natures in Christ, as is evidently seen lib. de iis qui initiantur. ca 9 and the Sacrament. lib. 4. ca 4. This mutation he will have to be such, that the things still remain. Vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur. The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca 1. saith we receive bread. Tu, saith he, quia accipis panem, divinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento. Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignorance or negligence, that citeth the ninth book of Ambrose de Sacramentis, where he wrote but six, if those six books at all were his, and allegeth these two places, as out of Ambroses' book de Sacramentis, that are not there to be found, but are derived out of his book de iis qui initiantur ca 9 Finally he grossly belieth Ambrose, where he saith, he averreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another, for he doth neither talk of the change of natures, of elements, nor substances.  
To prove the article of the Pope's supremacy, of the worship of images, and of the sacrifice of Mass to have been always believed in the Church, he allegeth neither authority, nor reason, but only saith, 
a Pag. 113.  that although we appoint certain times when these things began, yet we dare not stand to any certain time, nor can allege the certain authors of them. But as in his own proofs, so in reporting our assertions he useth notorious falsehood and impudency. For we do not say, as he reporteth, that the Pope challenged this supremacy, which now in some countries he possesseth, under Pope Gregory, and Phocas the Emperor, but that they began to encroach by little and little, and that Boniface the 3. obtained of Phocas, that the seat of Peter should be esteemed chief of all Churches, as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest, we say the Popes obtained partly by fraud, and force of arms in the time of Gregory the 7. and divers of his successors. The authors of the Mass, and of the worship of Images both entering by degrees, we allege most certainly out of their own histories, and stand to our allegation so firmly, that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to pass over the matter in sad and deep silence. That heresies could not creep into the church without being espied, we grant, & therefore show how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most ancient and sound Fathers: and that Rob. Parsons had little reason to stand upon this exception, or his negative proof, as he ridiculously calleth it.  
His affirmative proof also is not much better. First, he 
a Pag. 123.  citeth the names of Irenaeus, justine Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus for proof of the Pope's supremacy, free-will, merit of works, the sacrifice and ceremonies of the mass. But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speak, lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing, or else to speak against the producents cause. Only he could not, as he saith Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. advers. haeres. ca 3. beginning, Maximae & antiquissimae ecclesiae etc. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence, which showeth, that the tradition of other churches is no less to be regarded, then that of the church of Rome, and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only, not as head, but for avoiding tediousness. 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 convenire ecclesiam, in this sort, for that unto this church, in respect of her more mighty principality, it is necessary, that all churches must agree, & have access. Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is, that every church should have respect unto the church of Rome in respect of her greatness & dignity, and not subject itself or agree unto it. Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly, that because Christians did respect the church of Rome much, while it kept the faith sincere, now also all churches are to respect it, being departed from the faith, & tyramnizing over all others. For why should we rather respect that church, than the church of Ephesus & Smyrna, whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no less respected, then that of Rome? Mainly therefore doth Parsons conclude upon Irenaeus his words, saying, lo here the principality of that church confirmed. For by the Pope's supremacy far greater matters are now understood, than Irenaeus ever gave to Rome, or understood by principality.  
Next he urgeth the confession of the Magdeburgians against us. But neither do we allow whatsoever they say, nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to prove, that the modern faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome. True it is, that in the 2. Century c. 4. under the title of Incommodious opinions, and stubble of some Doctors, they allege Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur. 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giving the keys only to Peter, and saying, that the Church is built upon him. Likewise they ta●● Cyprian for some speeches. But it is plain idiotism hereof to conclude, that either Cyprian, or Tertullian, or Irenaeus, or Ignatius doth hold & maintain the bishop of Rome's authority, which now he challengeth. Parson's seemeth not to have read Cyprian. No way, certes, he can be thought to understand him, that nameth Salonius for Sidonius, and supposeth Maximus, Vrbanus, and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers, and to have affirmed, that there ought to be one chief Bishop in the catholic church, whereas these three returning from the side of schismatics, that in every church had erected a bishop of their own faction, began now to hold, that in every several church, there ought to be but one bishop. Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well understand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist. 8. For indeed he speaketh not of the Roman church, but of the universal church. The like may be said of Cyprians book de simplic. Praelat. Finally if Parsons upon the words of Cyprian, or Origen, can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope, he shall well deserve a Cardinal's hat. But in the mean while, he must content himself with a garland of Fore tails for his insignious foppery, that by such weak surmises thinketh to prove the faith of Eleutherius & Clement the 8. to be all one.  
He should also have alleged the testimony of the Magdeburgians, as yielding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Mass, for transubstantiation, & the worship of images: but therein he faileth. Only he talketh idly of certain frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers, and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of free-will, justification, Repentance, Good works, Fasts, virginity, keeping of Holy days, Martyrdom, invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Traditions, Monastical life, Relics, and such like points. But all this is nothing to the purpose. For neither are we bound to perform and make good every private man's singular opinions: nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference betwixt themselves and the Fathers: nor do they always gather their sentences out of the authentical writings of the Fathers: neither do they mean and comprehend all, as oft as they speak against one or two: nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from us, that either all the Fathers make against us, or that all, most, or any do join with the Papists. Robert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends, to leave this vain and roving discoursing, and scholarlike to conclude somewhat against that religion, which he hath forsaken, and we do profess, and believe to be most Catholic, and ancient, and Apostolical.  
For proof that the religion now professed in Rome is the same, which was brought into England by Austin the Monk, he referreth us p. 152. to Stapletons' Fortress of faith, as he called it. But he should remember, that the same fortress was taken, and overthrown by M. Doctor Fulke of worthy memory, and that in such sort, that the builder and author of that foolish fortress, durst never undertake to repair the ruins thereof. Furthermore, he is to understand, that Stapletons' discourse containeth a brief recapitulation of certain ceremonies and abuses in doctrine, which were in practice about the coming in of Augustine into England. But neither were they matters of any importance, nor were they generally received, nor were they agreeable to the forms now received, and used in the Church of Rome.  
Part. 1. ch. 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gregory and Austin, and railing against M. Fox, M. Bale, and M. Holinshead. And Chap. 9 and 10. endeavoureth to prove, that Austin brought into England no other religion, then that, which the Church professed during the times of Eleutherius. But first we have no special quarrel either against Gregory or Austin. If Parsons will needs urge us to speak against the Monk Austin, he shall hear, what he was anon. Secondly, these good men M. Fox, M. Bale, and M. Holinshead, it is no marvel though they be railed on by such wicked fellows. Upright and good men, (as the Wiseman showeth us, Prou. 29.) are an abomination to the wicked. Thirdly, we do not so much contend about the corruptions brought in by Austin the Monk, as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust upon us. Parsons therefore ought to show, that now the same religion is professed ' in Rome, which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britain and England, and not so much to prate of the times between Eleutherius and Austin. Howbeit it appeareth, that even in these time's superstition and false doctrine began to creep into some corners of the Church contrary to that form, which was received from the Apostles, and used in Eleutherius his times. Some began to talk doubtfully of Purgatory, others to pray privately to Saints. In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised divers from Apostolical orders. Of free-will and of Works some began to talk philosophically, others to advance man's merits. Churches were built in honour of Saints, and their Relics worshipped. Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table, and a silver cross, and began to chant Litanies; which Rob. Parsons, albeit all the jebusites in Rome should help him with their suffrages, will never prove to have been known or practised in Eleutherius his time. Pa. 181. he proveth altars in Britain out of Chrysostome, and afterward altars of stone, and sacrifices, and vows, and oaths made to Saints out of Gildas. He allegeth also Optatus, and Augustine, for proof of altars, and the Mass. But neither doth the name of Mass, or altars, or sacrifices, or vows prove the Romish Mass, altars, sacrifice, vows, or the Romish doctrine of these points, as at large hath been declared in my books De Missa, and De Monachis against Bellarmine, nor do we stand upon names or terms, nor are these the principal points of Romish religion, which we impugn: nor is the testimony of Gildas authentical.  
Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth us of a Church built in the honour of Saint Martin, where Austin song, prayed, and said Masses; of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his prayer, and application of relics, of a prayer made to Saint Alban, of honouring Martyrs sepulchres, of Alleluia, and the observance of Lent, out of Bede. But therein he spendeth his labour in vain. For neither were the Masses then said, nor the honour then done to Saints relics, nor their observances like to those, which the Church of Rome now practiseth. Beside that, Bede speaketh of things passed after the manners of his time, and reporteth many things by hearsay. Parson's also to help 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 sepulchre 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 Apostolic sea, and that there were Procession, Organs, and singing in the Church. Out of M. Bale, M. Fox, Trithemius and others, that before Augustine's time there were divers learned men and preachers among the Britain's, whereof some were instructed at Rome, some were sent from Rome, some built Monasteries, some were Monks. But neither doth that make any thing for proof, that they either held that religion, which Eleutherius taught, or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth.  
Finally, he affirmeth, that the religion taught by Austin, was catholic and confirmed by miracles, and showeth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times. But that which is the point in controversy, viz. that the religion established by the conventicles of Lateran, Constance, Florence, Trent, and by the Pope's Decretals since Innocent the thirds time, is the same, that was preached by Austin the Monk, the wise disputer doth scarce mention, and no way proveth. Of this his loose dispute than I infer first, that seeing he would have us 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 have been brought into the Church. Secondly, that Robert Parsons is not able to prove the carnal real presence, nor transubstantiation, nor the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered really in the Mass for quick and dead, nor half Communions, nor the Pope's tyrannical supremacy, nor his Indulgences, nor the worship of Images, nor Purgatory for satisfaction for the temporal pains of mortal sins, nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by us refused, to have been preached by those, that first planted Christian religion in this country.   

CHAP. VI Of the vanity and foolery of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conversions of England.  
HItherto we have discoursed of Parsons his falsehood, who will needs bear the Reader in hand, that this land hath not only been thrice converted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome, but also to that faith, which now the Pope and his adherents do profess. Now therefore it resteth, that we speak somewhat of the vanity and foolery of his whole purpose, that by this discourse hopeth to reclaim us back to the subjection of the Pope. Two things it seemeth, he aimeth at in this work. The first is, to bring the King, the Clergy, the Nobles, and people of England, under the Pope's obedience, and into the captivity of Babylon. The second is, to persuade us to like of the Romish Religion, and all the abominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon. But to effect this purpose, this labour is wholly unsufficient.  
For first, no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion, or rule over God's people, as the Pope pretendeth to be due unto him. Our Saviour Christ expressly forbiddeth such rule unto his Disciples. The Princes of nations (saith he) 
a Mallb. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 22.  bear rule over 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 tyranny over the Lord's heritage. Neque dominantes in Cleris, saith he. Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius, applieth this to him, and showeth, that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination, and lordliness. Planum est (saith he) lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus. ay, ergo tu, & tibi usurpare aude, aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolicus dominatum. The Apostle Paul also 2. Cor. 1. showeth, that the Apostles themselves had no dominion over Christian men's faith, so that he might impose yokes upon their consciences. Not (saith he) that we have dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of your joy. Finally, our Saviour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi, or Master, and showeth, that this is Pharisaical. Gregory also disliketh the title of Universal Bishop, and reason showeth, that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the general Master, or teacher of the whole Church.  
Secondly, the people of God may not subject themselves to any such tyranny. Stand fast (saith the Apostle Gal. 5.) in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. And again, Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over you, by humbleness of mind, and worshipping of Angels, advancing himself in those things, which he never saw, rashly puffed up with his fleshly mind. Which words do directly belong to the Pope, who pretending humility, and calling himself Servant of servants: yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels, and telling news out of Purgatory, and strange things, which he never saw, affecteth Lordship and rule over the Church of God. There cannot be assigned a more proper mark to know the adherents of Antichrist, than the slavish bondage and subjection of the papists to the Pope, who ruleth in their consciences, and marketh them for his slaves, as we read Apocalyps. 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie. He made all both small and great, (saith john) rich and poor, free and bond to receive a mark in their right hand, and in their foreheads. But let such beware, how they continue in this bondage: and let others that are free, take heed how they suffer themselves to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyranny. For as we read Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast, and his image, and receive antichrist's mark in their foreheads, or in their hands, shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.  
Thirdly, experience teacheth us, that the Gospel began to be preached first at Jerusalem, and from thence went forth into all lands. And our Saviour Christ speaking to his Apostles, Act. 1. saith, They shall be witnesses to him, both in Jerusalem, and in all judaea, and to the uttermost part of the earth. Yet never did either the Bishops, or Church of Jerusalem claim dominion, or superiority over the whole Christian Church for that cause. Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater privilege, where they say Peter preached, and sent out teachers to convert divers cities and nations, than the Church of Jerusalem, where our Saviour Christ himself preached, and from whence as we read, Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world, and to teach all nations?  
Fourthly, we read 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 Britain. For so Capgrave writeth, citing Freculphus for his author. It is said also, that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospel in France, and that james coming from jerusalem, preached first in Spain. S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth, that the Gospel came into Africa by the means of preachers, that came out of the East country. Finally, our histories do teach us, that the Northern Saxons were converted by Finan a Scot, and that the Irish were converted to the faith by Patrick a Britain, and that the Frizelanders, and divers German nations were taught religion by preachers out of England. Yet neither are the Indian Churches subject 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 Jerusalem, or the Africans to the Eastern Church, or the Frizelanders or Germans 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 Britain's and Saxons were converted by preachers sent from Rome, that the Church of England should be subject 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 Paul. Neither need we make any question, but that they came from Jerusalem. divers stories also say, that Peter for some time sat Bishop of Antioch. 
a In Chronico.  Eusebius saith, He was 25. years Bishop at Antioch. If then the Church of Rome do yield no subjection either for matters of faith, or government to the Church of Jerusalem, 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 urge this matter of Conversion so much, seeing the Romanists themselves, and their holy Fathers the Popes of Rome regard it not one strain.  
Finally, if our own Bishops, to whom we owe subjection in the Lord, should teach any other Gospel, then that which was preached by the Apostles of our Saviour Christ, we are not to follow them. Nay we are to pronounce them Anathema. Though we (saith the Apostle, Gal. 1.) or an Angel from heaven should preach unto you otherwise, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. But the Pope and his adherents preach unto us otherwise, and publish doctrines in their Decretals, and acts of the conventicles of Lateran, Constance, Florence, and Trent, not only divers from the Apostles preaching, but also contrary unto it, as partly we have showed, and also shall be ready to aver to Parsons his face, though never so much steeled with impudency. Had they then any right to teach or govern us, as they have not: yet by the Apostles rule we are to pronounce them Anathema. And as for Parsons, we are to suppose him a weak fellow, that hath spent the quintessence of his silly learning and understanding to prove that, which profiteth him nothing.  
If we owe any thing to the romans, it is to those, if any such were, that took pains to teach us the faith of Christ. As for the modern Romanists, that seek to turn us from true religion, nay that seek to blow us up, we owe them nothing. Furthermore, as well may it be concluded, that the Pope and his adherents the jebusites are to be subject to the great Turk, that now ruleth at Jerusalem, or to his Mufti or chief Bishop there, because from thence came the preachers that first founded the Church of Rome, as that we are to be subject to the Church of Rome, or the Pope, because the ancient Britain's and Saxons were first converted by preachers, that came from Rome. For the Turks Mufti is as good a Bishop, as the Pope, and the Pope's religion is not much less corrupted in many points, then that of the Turk. Howsoever it is, the Turks call themselves Musulmans, or True believers, as the Papists call themselves Catholics. Finally, I cannot better compare Parsons, that concludeth subjection and obedience of this pretended Conversion to any, then to him that would infer, that the Pope is Lord of the whole world, because sometime Rome was mistress of the world, or that the Romans have obligation to the Turks of Asia, because they possess the city and country of Troy, from whence it is said, the ancient Romans are descended.  
But saith Parsons, pa. 28. Irenaeus, Tertullian de Prescript. Cyprian lib. 4. cap. 8. Augustine and others are wont to urge greatly against Heretics, that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome, then ought it to run 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 affirm this of any other Church. Why then doth he not bring forth his testimonies that hath been so often taken halting in false alleging the Fathers? Irenaeus lib. 3. advers. haeres. saith, that every Church ought to have respect to the Church of Rome then, for her eminent principality. And others regarded her, when she flourished in piety. But what is this to the modern Church of Rome, that is departed from the faith, piety, and virtue of the ancient Church of Rome? Again, 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 difficulty with the Church of Rome: yet this proveth 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 appear, that Parsons his work is as frail as a Spiderwebbe, and as full of foolery, as frailty, undertaking to prove matters, which he could not perform, and which being proved do rather make against him, then for him?   

CHAP. VII. That the late Popes of Rome have deserved nothing of England, or the English nation, but hatred and detestation.  
GLadly would Parsons have concluded, if he durst, that the English, being first converted to the faith by the Romans, are now to be subject to the Pope both in matters of doctrine, and Ecclesiastical government. But well he understood, that the consequent was lewd and foolish. He doth now therefore 
a Part. 1. ca 1.  say only, That England and English men have particular obligation to the sea of Rome, leaving it to every man's private supposal, what that obligation is. But we do no more yield to this, then to the former conclusion.  
For whereas the inhabitants of England are descended either of the ancient Britain's, or Saxons, or Danes, or Normans and Frenchmen: first, the ancient Britain's and their offspring do owe nothing either to Austin or Gregory. For when as the Bishops of the Britain's came to confer with Austin, most proudly he sat in his chair, and would not receive them with any sign of humanity or reverence. Factum est (saith Bede lib. 2. histor. Anglor. cap. 2.) ut venientibus illis sederet Augustinus in sella. He confesseth also, that the Britain Bishops noted his pride. And it appeareth manifestly in this, that ambitiously he sought to be the Archbishop of England, and to rule over the Britain's. Again, when the Bishops of Britain refused him as their Archbishop, and would not submit themselves to his commandments, he animated the Saxons, and stirred them to war against the Britain's. Austin being refused of the Bishops (saith Thomas Grey in his Chronicle,) and others the learned of the Britain's, made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert king of Kent, that forthwith he levied his power, and marched against them, and slew them in most cruel wife, having no more mercy on them, than a Wolf upon a sheep. Another old English Chronicle testifieth, That Augustine went with the army to the war, and that such of the Britain's, as were sent to entreat for peace, were killed without pity. That Augustine was the cause of this war and murder, we may probably also gather out of Bedes history. For he doth not only show, that the greatest slaughter was made of the Monks of Bangor, that resisted Austin, and gave counsel against him, but also that Austin did threaten them and foretell them, that they should have war. 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 alleged of this war against the Britain's, but that Augustine was by them rejected. Is not then Austin to be taken as a brave Apostle and converter of nations to the faith, that came with Pagans against Christians with fire and sword, because they would not undergo his yoke? To excuse this matter they allege the words of Bede, as they pretend, who speaking of this murder, saith, That Austin was dead long before. But a man of mean judgement may see, that these words are thrust into Bede by some falsary. For how could Austin be dead long before, that after this war, as Bede reporteth, ordained justus and Melitus Bishops? Do dead men revive again to ordain Bishops? Furthermore, these words of Augustine's death before the murder of the Britain's are not found in the Saxon translation of Beda made by King Alured. Finally, both the Chronicles of Peterborough, and Flores historiarum do witness, that Austin died three years after the execution done upon the Britain's. The Britain's therefore are not bound to Rome, that sent this proud and cruel man amongst them. Neither is the same much obliged to Eleutherius, if he did, as is said, send Preachers into Britain. The reasons I have before alleged.  
As for the Danes, Normans, and French, and their discendants they are clear also from this obligation. For the Romanists, albeit they seek out all colours to beautify the Pope's chair, yet say not that preachers from Rome did convert them to the faith.  
It resteth then, that all the weight of this obligation to Rome, which Parsons advanceth so magnifically, must rest upon a few Saxons or English. But this cannot be great, as I have showed, seeing the Saxons were not then the greatest part of the inhabitants of this land, nor generally converted by the romans, as hath been declared.  
But were the ancient English, beholding in times passed to Gregory, or Austin; yet the inhabitants of England for this six hundred years and upward, have been little beholding to the Popes of Rome, and their adherents. For first they have used all force and fraud to plant their false, heretical, and idolatrous Religion in England, as their sending of Legates, Agents, Archpriests, jebusites, and mass-priests, when they durst openly, and now of late privily, and the rebellions, and wars stirred up by them against the Kings and Princes of England do declare. If then we are neither to hearken to false Prophets, nor dreamers of dreams, nor to spare them, or favour them, that would draw us from the service of God to Idolatry; 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 paganism, and gross Idolatry. Again, If we are to mark them, and avoid them, that cause division and offences, contrary to the doctrine, which we have received from the Apostles, as Saint Paul exhorteth us, Roman. 16. then are we to have no communion nor fellowship with the Pope, which endeavoureth to divide us from the Catholic Church, and to draw us from Apostolical doctrine to his lewd Decretaline Heresies and Traditions. Secondly, they have by their cunning engines drawn infinite treasure out of England, impoverishing both the Kings and people of this Island by their manifold exactions. Matthew Paris doth in sundry places complain 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 spoil of every one, that passed by.  
Thirdly, for the most part they have concurred with our enemies, and by all means oppugned our nation. Matthew Paris writing Harold's life showeth, 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 favour to join with him, that came to conquer our country, and to cut the Englishmen throats?  
In the days of Henry the 2. the Pope favoured both the Kings disloyal subjects, and open enemies, as appeareth by the discourse of matters passed betwixt him and Thomas Becket.  
Innocentius the 3 excommunicated King john, and sought to deprive him of his kingdom. By his malicious courses the King lost Normandy, and was forced to surrender his Crown into his Legates hands. Matthew Paris testifieth, that he gave the English for slaves to the French. Sententialiter definivit (saith he) ut Rex Anglorum joannes 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 enjoy the kingdom of England. Vt ipse & successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent. And may we think, that any is so brutish, as to dispute, that we are beholding to the Pope, that giveth us as a prey unto our enemies? Certes, unless we had read it in Parsons the Pope's parasite, we could hardly have believed it. In the end albeit he could not bring us into servitude: 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 overthwarted him and disturned the course of his victories in France, than the Pope, as his letters, menaces, and practices reported in Histories declare.  
To forbear to speak of ancient wrongs done to our Princes and nation by other Popes, see (I beseech you) the indignities offered to king Henry the 8. and his subjects by that impious Pope Paul the third, and to his daughter Q. Elizabeth of famous memory and her people, by that lousy friar Pius the fifth, Gregory the 13. and Sixtus the fifts seditious, railing, and outrageous Bulls. Paul the third raileth on the King, interditeth the kingdom, depriveth his subjects of trade, and giveth them as slaves to those that could take them. Prohibet commercium cum Anglis, (saith Sanders in his Gloss upon the Pope's Bull) foedera cum Henrico dissoluit, Henrici sequaces tradit in servitutem. Look what rage or malice can devise, that he vomiteth out both against the King, and our nation. And will Parsons have our nation to submit themselves to such monsters? or can any find in their hearts to yield to such tyrants?  
Against Queen Elizabeth, Pius Quintus, as appear by the discourse written of his life, first stirred up her subjects, and when that served not, he animated both Spaniard and French against her, and her people.  
Gregory the 13. by his Legate Sanders stirred the Irish to take arms against our nation. The same man, when force served not, animated the assassinor and murderer Parry to lay violent hands upon her person, not omitting withal any course to hurt or trouble her subjects.  
In the end, by the procurement of Sixtus quintus, the Spanish Armada, supposed and ridiculously called invincible, came upon us, with a full intention to depose the Queen, to destroy her true subjects, and to mark the rest for slaves. And can any man think well of the Pope, so long as any memory of this action remaineth? It is no marvel then, if the Pope set on that traitorous companion Allane to speak all the dishonour he could both against the Prince and her nation, seeing he intended the total destruction of the kingdom, and her subjects. But if we search all histories, we shall never find a more bloody and savage enterprise, then that which the Papists of late attempted, resolving to extinguish the King's line, to destroy the King, his Nobles and the commons in Parliament assembled, and utterly to subvert 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 bloody and malicious enemies of our nation for many years.  
But saith Parsons in his Ward-word, Our nation hath been twice converted by the labour and industry of that sea. And since he saith, The same hath been thrice converted from Paganism to Christian Religion. So absurdly doth he confound himself in his own devise. But neither can he prove his Conversions: 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 seek to destroy both the bodies and souls of those, whose ancestors ancient Bishops of Rome are said to have gained to Christ.  
And this may serve to answer Parsons his patchery talking of the obligation, which England and English men owe to Rome. Now because the same man every where telleth us of the succession of Romish Bishops, and gladly would smother the fame of Pope joan: albeit the same be somewhat impertinent to the matter of Three Conversions; yet shall we examine the title of the Pope's succession, turning a little out of the way, to observe our adversaries exorbitant proceeding.   

CHAP. VIII. That the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter, or Eleutherius, but rather of Pope joan.  
MUch doth Robert Parsons boast of the succession of Popes, especially Part. 2. cap. 1. and giveth out, that it is of great importance, for trial of true Religion. Bellarmine De not is Eccles. and divers others his consorts esteem it a principal mark of the Church. But when the matter shall be thoroughly discussed, he shall well perceive, that he hath no cause so much to boast of these conceits, seeing neither the Popes are successors to Peter, or the ancient Bishops of Rome, nor the succession of Popes is any mark of the Church, or proper trial of true religion.  
The first is proved by these arguments. First, no man can claim right of succession, but either by right of testament, or proximity of blood, or some law or laudable custom. For that is the opinion of all Lawyers, where they talk of successions. But Clement the 8. and his predecessors for divers ages, can neither produce any Will made by S. Peter declaring the modern Popes to be his successors, nor any law or custom grounded on the old or new testament. Neither can they show, that they are of his kindred or affinity, whereby they may seem to have right of succession. The like also we may say of Eleutherius. Secondly, all successors either do succeed, as heirs, in the whole right, or as Legataries in some special bequest of land, goods, or right, or else as executors of any office, or charge. But if Clement the 8. should claim to be Saint Peter's heir, or a legatory; then must he show some testament, or will, or law made in his favour. If he claim to succeed him in office, then must he show both records, how he holdeth his office, and also acts, which may declare him, to have truly executed Saint Peter's office. Likewise if he claim to be Eleutherius his successor, he must both show a lawful title, and declare, that he hath executed Eleutherius his function. But neither can he exhibit any proof for hïs' title of Apostolical or Episcopal function, neither doth it appear, either that he worketh miracles, or teacheth all nations, as did Saint Peter, or that he preacheth or baptizeth, as did Eleutherius. Wherein then have Clement, and his predecessors employed themselves? Forsooth, in stopping the preaching and proceeding of the Gospel, and in murdering the Saints of God, and maintaining the kingdom of Antichrist. None of them (certes) can show any title, either from Peter or Eleutherius, or other godly Bishop.  
Thirdly, the Pope's claim to be Universal Bishops, and heads and spouses of the Universal Church. But that never 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 under one head. Sub uno capite, saith he, omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Likewise in the title of ecumenical or Universal Bishop he showeth, that the Pope doth rather follonws Lucifer, than Peter, or any godly Bishop. Quis saith he, speaking of the title of universal Bishop, in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille, ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere? He saith also, that none of the Prelates of that sea would ever be called by so profane a title. The Apostle Paul showeth, that there is but one head and spouse of the Universal Church, that is Christ jesus.  
Fourthly, our Saviour Christ forbade S. Peter and his Apostles so to bear rule over Christians, as temporal Kings did over nations. Neither do we find that S. Peter, or Eleutherius did transgress Christ's commandment. If then the Pope doth rule, not as Princes over nations, but as King of Kings, & challengeth power to depose Kings, then is he not S. Peter's or Eleutherius his successor. S. Bernard saith, the Pope cannot both bear this rule, and succeed Peter in his Apostleship. Plane ab alterutro prohiberis; si utrumque similiter habere voles, perdes utrumque. And again, forma Apostolica haec est, dominatio interdicitur, indicitur ministratio.  
Fiftly, Peter exhorted Christians. 1. epist. 2. to obedience to Kings and governors, and Eleutherius, no question, did follow his exhortation. Where either of these persuaded Christians to take arms against their superiors, or took upon them to depose Emperors and Kings, and to tread upon their necks, we read not. Clement therefore and his predecessors, that have taken upon them to depose Kings, and have trodden upon their necks, and raised their subjects against them, are rather successors of julius Caesar, and Nero, and the Emperors of Romans, then of Peter and Eleutherius.  
Sixtly we do not read, that Peter ever came abroad crowned with a triple crown, and clad with golden and silken ornaments and apparel, or that he had a guard of Suitzers, and a number of Cardinals, mass-priests, and Friars to attend upon him. The like also we may say of Eleutherius. The Pope's therefore that come abroad with this pomp 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 high 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 oves meas. In his successisti non Petro, sed Constantino.  
7. S. Peter never challenged any right in the city of Rome, or territory adjoining, 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 Monarch of the Church. The Pope's therefore usurping these rights, and challenging these titles, do not therein succeed Peter, or the ancient Bishops of Rome.  
8. S. Peter and Eleutherius never took upon them to dispense with oaths, or Simony, or sacrilege, or incest, or such abominable crimes. Neither did ambitious, simoniacal, sacrilegious, incestuous and such monstrous persons resort to Peter, either to procure preferment, or to retain honours which they had already procured. Bernard lib. 1. de Consid. speaking of the Apostle, Nunquid ad eum, saith he, de totò orb confluebant ambitiosi, avari, simoniaci, sacrilegi, concubinarij, incestuosis, & quaeque istiusmodi monstra hominum, ut ipsius Apostolica authoritate vel obtinerent honores Ecclesiasticos, vel retinerent? In this case therefore the Popes show not themselves the Apostles successors, neither will they prove the successors of the ancient Bishops of Rome, unless they can show, that they did these things.  
9 No man can be said to succeed the Apostles, but those which preach the word of God, and administer the Sacraments; nor unto Bishops, but which do the office & work of Bishops. Therefore doth Cyprian call Bishops the Apostles successors lib. 4. epist. 9 and the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. doth call a bishopric a good work, and 2. Tim. 2. Timothy is termed a workman. Hierome in an epistle to Oceanus showeth, that the office of a Bishop importeth a good work, and not dignity. St quis saith he, Episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat: opus, non dignitatem: laborem non delicias. Bernard lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. saith, that the name of a Bishop doth imply officium, non dominium: an office, and not a pre-eminence. And that may appear by the practice of Eleutherius, a diligent preaching Bishop. But the Popes now do not either the office of Apostles in going about to teach all nations, or the office of a Bishop in teaching the flock of Christ, and governing the same according to the Apostles Canons. What do they then? Forsooth, they encourage Assassins to murder Princes, and, as Paul the fifth of late did, grant Indulgences to miners and powdermen to blow up the King, his Nobles, and Commons assembled in Parliament, and to shed innocent blood.  
10. Peter diligently fed the flock of Christ according to the charge given him by Christ. Neither need we to doubt, but that Eleutherius did the same. Can we then call the Popes the successors of Peter, and Eleutherius, that neither feed the flock of Christ, nor care for the same, but rather like wolves seek to devour and destroy Christ's sheep? Bernard lib. 4. ad Eugen. denied Eugenius either to be a paffor, or Peter's successor, if he did not feed. 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 succeed 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. advers. 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 hear those Bishops, which have their succession from the Apostles, which with the succession of their bishopric have received the gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father. Tertullian de Prescript. contr. haeret. showeth 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. denieth expressly, that they succeed in Peter's inheritance, which keep not the faith of Peter. But the Popes of lats' time are departed from the faith of Peter and Eleutherius, as before we have showed.  
Finally, it is an absurd thing to suppose idolaters, heretics, conjurers, sacrilegious Church-robbers, whoremongers, gluttons, and carnal worldlings, that raise wars, trouble Christendom, vex the professors of S. Peter's doctrine, and sow rather gunpowder, than God's word, to be the Apostle Peter, or Eleutherius his successors. Hierome, as the adversaries report dist. 40. c. non est facile, holdeth them not for Saints which possess the place of Saints, but those which do their works. The same man upon the second of Michaeas: Apostolicus saith he, sermonem & conversationem Apostolorum imitetur. jonas Aurelianensis lib. 3. de Cult. imag. holdeth none for Apostolic, but which do the work of Apostles. john of Salesbury Polycrat. lib. 8. c. 23. saith, that such as ambitiously, and not without effusion of blood mount into the Pope's chair, do rather succeed Romulus in parricide, than Peter in governing of the flock committed to them.  
The Pope's therefore of late time neither succeed Peter, nor Eleutherius, nor the ancient Bishops of Rome. But if they succeed any, they succeed Pope joan. Their spiritual fornications and idolatries, their golden cup, wherein they propound their abominable doctrine to the world, their whorish deceits and frauds, their whorish forehead and impudency, their bloody massacres and cruelty declare them properly to succeed her, and to be of near 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 striveth in vain against a story recorded by men not set on by us, but favouring the sea of Rome, and such, as no man can note of partiality in this behalf.  
That john the 8. or as some number the Popes, the 7. was a woman, first Radulphus Flaviacensis in his Chronicle doth testify. This man was a Monk of Benet's order, and lived about the year of our Lord 930. as Trithemius reporteth.  
Secondly Marianus Scotus doth report the same. Anno Domini 854. saith he, anno Lotharij 14. successit Leoni joannes mislier. He showeth also, that she sat two years, five months, and four days.  
Our third witness is Sigebertus, who speaking of this Pope, saith, that the fame went, that this john was a woman, and being begot with child by her servant, was delivered being Pope. These two testimonies of Marianus Scotus, and Sigebertus Gemblacensis our adversaries now of late have razed out of all those copies, which now are printed. But this doth nothing relieve their credit, but rather blot them both with the infamy of this whoredom, and also with corruption and falsity. Their own consciences must needs herein witness against them, seeing they know, that these words are found as well in printed books, as in ancient manuscript copies.  
Martinus Polonus our fourth witness telleth plainly, that this woman disguised in man's apparel went with her lover to Athens, proved learned, returned to Rome, was chosen Pope, begotten with child, and delivered near S. Clement's Church, and that for this cause all Popes afterward shunned this way.  
Our fifth witness is Martin a Minorite, in his book entitled Flores temporum, printed at ulme in Dutch anno Domini 1486. This Minorite telleth, how Pope joan conjuring a Devil to tell, when he would depart out of the body of one possessed, received answer, that he would declare this, when the Pope would tell, when a Pope should be delivered of child.  
Papa pater patrum, saith he, papissae pandito partum,  
Et tibi tunc edam, de corpore quando recedam.  
Our sixth witness is Francis Petrarch, who in an Italian book printed at Florence anno Dom. 1478. saith, that a woman was made Pope, and delivered of child.  
The seventh witness 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 Pope's delivery of child, was erected in the place where she travailed of child and died: and thereupon exclaimeth, o the depth of the wisdom, and knowledge of God  
The eight witness is john Boccace in his book De Foeminis illustribus, who in the whole report agreeth with Antonine, and his other contests.  
The ninth is jacobus Gulielmus of Egmond a Monk in the rhymes following.  

Papacadit, panditur improbis  
Ridendi norma, puer nascitur  
In vico Clementis.   
Wernerus Rolewinke maketh the tenth, who in his book called Fasciculus temporum, speaking of this Pope, saith, That being gotten with child, and afterward going in Procession, she died in travail, and therefore was not put into the catalogue of Popes.  
The same history is recorded by him that wrote the Annals of Auspurg anno Domini 855. he therefore filleth the eleventh place.  
The full jury is made up by Raphael Volateran, who in his Cosmograph. consenteth with the rest.  
Unto these for a supply we may add Platina in joanne 8. Sabellicus Aenead. 9 Bergomensis and Palmerius in their Chronicles, Trithemius in Catalogue. Pontif. Albert Crantz, Baptista of Mantua, john Lucidus, john Stella, Nauclerus in Generate. 29. john Henaldus, and Peter Messias in Silva var. lect. Finally, lest any man might forget a matter so memorable, the same report was represented in imagery both in the street of S. Clement at Rome, and in the Cathedral Church of Sienna: and that might have been yet seen of every man, but that Pius the 5. ashamed of the lechery and whoredom of his predecessor, caused the statue of marble representing this Tragical accident to be thrown into Tiber. Finally no man ever denied, or contradicted this report, until the time of Onuphrius a hungry parasite of the Pope, and a lying Friar, who to win some favour of the Pope, began first to call this history into question, and desperately to face out the matter.  
If then Rob. Parsons and his consorts had not faces of proof, they would have been ashamed, being but late upstarts, and contemptible fellows, to have opposed their bare credits against the authority of so many authentical and unpartial witnesses in matters done so long before they came out of the bottomless pit. They answer and devise, what they think most fitting to discredit the report, or to help their cause. But all is but like dust cast into the air, that falleth on the heads of them that cast it, and blindeth their own eyes.  
Parson's pag. 389. answereth and saith, that albeit some such thing had happened, yet it had not prejudicated the Church of Christ. But had any such thing happened, then had he no reason so stiffly to deny it. Again, albeit the Catholic Church be not prejudiced by the intrusion of men or women incapable of Ecclesiastical function, yet the same would wholly overthrow the descent and succession of Romish Bishops, upon which the Romanists do so much depend. For if heretics, and men or women, uncapable of Ecclesiastical function, do thrust into the line of Bishops, then is the line of true Bishops interrupted. But of heretics S. Augustine giveth us knowledge epist. 165. that they may enter among the Romish Bishops, where he saith, What if a traitor in those times should have crept in? Of persons incapable, the story of Dame joan the Pope giveth testimony.  
He correcteth therefore his first answer, and upon better advice saith, that this whole story of Pope joan is a mere fable, devised first by Martinus Polonus a simple man, that telleth many things by hearsay, and continued by those that favoured the Germane Emperors contending against the Pope. And to prove this, he allegeth 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 Huntingdon, Roger Hoveden, Florentius Vigorniensis, and Matthew of Westminster, make no mention of this woman-pope. And thirdly, that Alphred living in Rome when Pope Leo died, or thereabout, must needs have known, that one of his own country had been 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 down. Fiftly, that Leo the 9 in the contention betwixt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople objected to Michael Bishop of Constantinople, that divers eunuchs, had been Bishops there, and as is said, a woman also, which it is not likely he would have done, if the same might truly have been said of the sea of Rome. And lastly, that the story containeth divers improbabilities, and contradictions. But that the story should be fabulous, or a matter feigned, it is not like, being recorded in so many histories, and authentical writers. That Martinus Polonus did first report this matter no man hath reason to believe, seeing the same so plainly set down in Radulphus Flaviacensis, Marianus Scorus, and Sigebertus Gemblacensis. Baronius saith, that Marianus Scotus was the first brother of it. Neither was Martinus Polonus so simple a fellow, as is pretended, being the Pope's penitentiary, and a writer in that kind equal to the best of his rank. That the favourers of the Emperor should brute this matter abroad to defame the Pope, is a mere fiction. For it cannot be showed, that any Emperor in the contention betwixt the Emperors and the Popes did ever cast out any such matter against the Pope. Rob. Parsons his arguments brought forth to prove this history to be a fable, are like his own head, that is, brutish and blockish. For first it is no good argument to conclude from the authority of two or three of the Pope's parasites negatively, viz. that they omit a matter tending to the Pope's defame, ergo no such matter was done. Secondly he allegeth a counterfeit author called Audomarus. He may do well to show, who he was, being neither mentioned by Baronius nor Bellarmine, where they talk of this matter. Thirdly it is ridiculous to inquire of our country writers of matters done at Rome, or to think that they would speak any thing tending to the disgrace of the Pope, whose sworn slaves they were. Beside that the author of Fasciculus temporum showeth, 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 certain, that either he, or his father were in Rome about the time of Pope Ioans delivery. But had they been at Rome about this time; yet might they well know Pope john 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 plain, that the agents of the Romish Church, men infamous for falsity, have razed the same out. And that may appear first by the testimony of Fasciculus temporum, who showeth the cause of the blotting out of Pope Ioans name; next, by ancient manuscript copies; and last, by the testimony of Baronius, who maketh Marianus Scotus the first deviser of this matter. So hard is it for liars and forgers to consent together. Sixthly it may be a question, whether the letters of Leo the 9 to Michael be counterfeit, or not. But were they written by him, as is reported; yet railers oftentimes object the same crimes one to another. Finally, there is no such discordance in the circumstances of the history, but that there are far greater in matters, which the Romanists believe to be most true. Letters, and names, and places, and times may be easily mistaken, and yet the matter reported may prove 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 study, it may be gathered out of Greek histories, no one writer certes holdeth the contrary.  
The Pope's therefore of this time, if they please, may be successors of Pope joan, whom we have manifestly demonstrated to have been Pope, but the successors of Peter and Eleutherius, and other godly ancient Bishops of Rome, they cannot justly term themselves.   

CHAP. IX. That the succession of Romish Popes is neither mark of the Church, nor means of trial of the truth.  
BEllarmine lib. de not. Eccles. ca 8. would gladly have the succession of the Romish Bishops to be a mark of the Church. And Rob. Parsons doth esteem the same a matter of great importance for trial of true religion, and proveth 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 virtue then the succession of the priests of the law. For from them they borrow divers titles and prerogatives. But the high priests of the jews did oftentimes withstand the Prophets of God, and Vria the high priest in the time of Achaz as we read 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 try their religion by the succession of Bishops, nor was succession then a mark of the Church. For neither did the Apostles succeed the high priests, or sacrificers of the jews, nor as yet had the Apostle Peter any successor. But the marks and properties of the Church are always the same. Neither can we look for better trial and proof of religion, then that which the Apostles had.  
Thirdly the Church of Rome, when Paul wrote his famous epistle unto it, had no succession of Bishops. Yet was it then the true Church. Neither need we to make question, but that the same had all convenient means for the trial of truth.  
4. The succession of Bishops in the Church of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria neither was a certain mark of the Church, nor a means to try the truth. And this, I think, our adversaries will not deny. But if they should, it may easily be proved, for that Ecclesiastical histories teach us, that the Bishops of those seas have fallen into divers gross heresies, and are now condemned for heretics by the sea of Rome.  
5. The Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople to this day show the Catalogues of their Bishops. Likewise Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonit. Cap. 34. showeth the successors of Simon Magus for divers ages. Likewise doth Epiphanius haeres. 34. show, who for divers years succeeded Valentinus. Yet Parsons will not grant, that either Valentinus, or Simon Magus, or their followers were true Catholics; neither will the Papists confess, 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 Bishop's truth may be tried.  
6. If by succession of Bishops either the Church, or the truth might certainly be discerned and tried, then could not Bishops err, or teach perversely. But histories teach us, that divers great Bishops have grossly 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 clearly show. Of your own selves saith he, shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them.  
Finally the adversaries themselves sometimes confess, that succession is no certain mark of the Church. Lyra in his postil upon the 16. of Matth. saith, that the chief Bishops have been found to have departed from the faith. But what trial is to be had by succession, if Bishops may depart from the faith? Bellarmine de not is Eccles. ca 8. saith, that we cannot conclude necessarily, that the Church is there, where is succession of Bishops. Non colligitur necessariò, saith he, ibi esse Ecclesiam, ubi est successio. But were they resolved to stand upon this succession, yet would the same draw with it the ruin of the Pope's cause. For never shall they be able to show a number of Bishops professing or holding the doctrine of the Pope's Decretals, and of the late conventicles of Lateran, Constance, Florence and Trent, until of late years.  
But, saith Parsons Part. 2. Ch. 1. Augustine was held in the Church by the succession of Bishops. And Tertullian de Prescript. advers. heretic. doth challenge heretics to this combat of succession. And Irenaeus proveth by the succession of Roman Bishops the true succession, and continuation of one and the self same Catholic faith. Likewise he allegeth Hierome, who in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith, We are to abide in that Church, which being founded by the Apostles, doth endure to this day: And Augustine lib de Vtil. credend. ca 17. that showeth how we are not to doubt to rest in the lap of that Church, which notwithstanding the barkings of heretics about it, by successions of Bishops from the Apostles seat, hath obtained the height of authority. Finally he telleth us Pag. 283. how 70. Archbishops of Canterbury were all of one religion. But first we must understand, that the ancient Fathers talking of succession, never speak of the external place, and bare succession of Bishops without respect to the truth of doctrine. Irenaeus lib. 4. Ch. 43. would have those Bishops hearkened unto, which succeed the Apostles, which with the succession of their Bishopric have received the certain gift of truth, according to the will of the Father. Tertullian lib. de Prescript. advers. haeret. showeth, that the persons are to be approved 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 have not right to succeed Peter, or Peter's inheritance, that hold not the faith of Peter. Nazianzen de laudib. Athanasijs, saith, that they are partakers of the same chair, or succession, that hold the same doctrine, as they that hold contrary doctrine, are to be counted adversaries in succession. Qui eandem fidei doctrinam profitetur, saith he, eiusdem quoque throni particeps est. Qui autem contrariam doctrinam amplectitur adversarius quoque in throno censeri debet. Whatsoever then the Fathers speak of succession, it concerneth as well succession in doctrine, as in place, & external title of office. Unless then this jebusite can show that the modern Popes are true Bishops, and hold the same faith, which Peter & the first Bishops of Rome did, the testimonies of the Fathers which he allegeth, will make against him. Secondly, the Fathers do allege the succession of other churches, as well as Rome. Irenaeus li. 3. advers. haeres. c. 3. appealeth as well to the Churches of Asia, & namely to that of Ephesus, & Smyrna, as to Rome; albeit for avoiding prolixity he citeth only the names of the Roman Bishops. Testimonium his perhibent, saith he, quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo. Likewise in the end of the Chapter he citeth the testimony of the Church of Ephesus. Tertullian de Prescript. adverse. haeret. maketh all Churches founded by the Apostles equal, 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 certain mark of the Church, or trial of the truth. S. Augustine contr. epist. fundament. c. 4. reckoneth divers things jointly with the succession of Bishops, which retained him in the Church, and among the rest sincerissimam sapientiam, the sincere wisdom of Christian doctrine. But Parsons must prove, that the succession of Bishops only is a sufficient argument of truth. Likewise Augustine in his book de Vtilit. credendi. ca 17. talketh not of the Romish Church, but of the Catholic Church, whose authority notwithstanding he placeth after the primary foundations of Scriptures. Likewise Hierome speaketh of the Catholic Church, & not of the particular Church of Rome. Finally, never shall it be proved, nor is it likely, the later Bishops of Canterbury before the reverend Father & most glorious Martyr Bishop Cranmer receiving the new Decretals of the Pope, & the decrees of the conventicles of Lateran, Constance and Florence, but that their faith differed much from the first Bishops of Canterbury, which lived before the times of these conventicles, that authorised these new corruptions. If then Rob. Parsons have no better argument in his book, than this of the external succession of the Popes of Rome, it is likely he meaneth fraud, and for the true Church commendeth unto us the synagogue of Antichrist, and the whore of Babylon, rather shunning, then seeking any lawful and certain trial of truth.   

CHAP. X. That the Church of England is the true Church of God, and holdeth the Apostolic and Catholic faith.  
AS Esau hated jacob because of his father's blessings, as we read Gen. 27. so Rob. Parsons, the more it hath pleased God our heavenvly Father to bless the Church of England, the more hatred doth he show against his countrymen and brethren. In the first part of his treatise of Three Conversions he endeavoureth to make them slaves to the Pope. In the second he raileth at them, as vagrant persons, and strangers from God's Church, and people without succession of teachers from the Apostles, and devoid, as he saith, of all demonstrations and evidences, to prove themselves to be Christ's Church. But if those be Gods true Church, which hear his word with attention, and believe it, and receive the Sacraments according to Christ's institution, and seek to worship God with true devotion, and to live after their Christian profession; then is the Church of England God's true Church. For although Bellarmine and others do spend much time in taking exceptions against our doctrine, practise in God's worship and manners; yet can none of them either prove any error in the doctrine which we teach, or the administration of Sacraments which we practise, or in the rules concerning God's worship or common manners, which we follow.  
Secondly those Christians which profess and believe all the Apostolic faith, and condemn all those errors and false doctrines, which the Apostles condemned, and endeavour unfeignedly to live according to their profession, are the true Church. For that is a property of Christ's sheep to hear his voice, & not to follow strangers, as we read john. 10. The Apostle also showeth Ephes. 2. that the faithful are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. But the Church of England believeth and professeth all the Apostles faith, and condemneth whatsoever is contrary to the same. Neither can the adversary justly charge us, that we allow any false worship of God, or breach of his holy ordinances.  
Thirdly, the Church of England for matters of Faith, Sacraments, God's worship and service, believeth & followeth whatsoever is either expressly commanded in holy Scriptures, or out of them deduced in ancient general and lawful Counsels, condemning also whatsoever is by ancient Counsels or Fathers declared to be contrary to the same.  
Fourthly, Christ's 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 own, nor usurpeth things belonging to others, as saith Lirmensis Commonit. ca 32. Likewise ca 34. he saith, it is the property of Catholics, to keep the doctrine of the Fathers committed to them in trust, and to condemn profane novelties. Who can then deny the name of Catholics unto us, but such as are false Catholics?  
Fiftly, all Churches, that belong to Christ's body, which is gathered and governed by his word, nourished and preserved by his holy Sacraments, and inspired and led by his holy spirit and grace, belong to Christ's Catholic Church. But nothing can be alleged by the adversaries, 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 communicate with the Catholic & Apostolic Church that is spread over all nations, & hath continued from the beginning, & shall continued to the end, & which hath a most certain succession of true Bishops, which adhereth to Christ only, & to his word, and whose faith is confirmed with miracles, and most invincible testimonies. If Parsons will deny this, let him cease his railing against us, and his vain babbling about impertinent matters, and forbear to impute unto us the names of factions, which we renounce, and the faults of particulars, which we defend not, & prove somewhat substantially.  
Seventhly the Church of England is justified by the confession of our adversaries: for with them we profess one faith in all articles contained in ancient Creeds, with them we receive the same Scriptures, with them we allow the sacrament of the Eucharist, & Baptism, with them we admit the most ancient general Counsels: and finally, whatsoever was delivered by the Apostles to be observed, that we observe. What is then the difference? Forsooth, they have added to the Apostles faith, to Christ's Sacraments, Scriptures, Apostolic doctrine & laws: and that we refuse, for that it is above, and beside, yea sometime contrary to the Canon of Scriptures, which is the perfect rule of faith. Unless therefore our adversaries will stubbornly reject the Apostolic faith, the canon of Scriptures, the Sacraments, and the ancient forms of Ecclesiastical government, & condemn the same, they cannot deny that Church of England to be the true Church. Finally, all those exceptions, which either Bellarmine or Bristol, or Stapleton, or Hill, or any of their consorts have taken to our doctrine or manners, are cleared, & so answered, that still the adversary, though never so full of words, resteth silenced. Parsons in the second part of his treatise of Three Conversions of England by him pretended, goeth about to show, that the Church of England is no part of the Church universally dispersed, and that hath continued throughout all ages. But his arguments are so vain, that I make this an argument to justify the cause of our Church. For if he and his consorts can take no just 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 judices, and our enemies therein judge against themselves.   

CHAP. XI. Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise, wherein he pretendeth to seek for the original and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward, is examined & refuted.  
IT is a simple part, according to the common proverb, in the midst of a river to ask, where is water; or in a forest of trees, to inquire for wood. Yet Parsons seemeth not much wiser, who in the Scriptures and writings of ancient Fathers every where finding the Apostolic and Catholic Church, with the which the Church of England holdeth communion, doth notwithstanding still inquire, where our Church was in the Apostles time, & the ages after. But it seemeth, he was unwilling to see, that which he was loath to find. His search certes, and manner of proceeding, 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 allegeth divers 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 us, who do well allow of that faith, which was taught and maintained by those Bishop's succeeding one another in divers Churches, which they mention? Nay, if Parsons talked of no other faith or doctrine, then that which those holy Fathers speak of, and did not hide in this catalogue of good Bishops, a multitude of false teachers, and Heretics much unlike to the former; the controversy betwixt us would soon 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 disagree in nothing, but will needs exact a descent of our faith by a catalogue of Bishops; we want not therein an answer sufficient. For the Bishops of Britain and England, that have continued since the first plantation of Religion, by joseph of Arimathaea, and other Apostolic men have still retained the Apostolic 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 conventicle of Trent. Although then the Church of England have purged away certain abuses: yet the substance of doctrine, and Sacraments we have not changed, therein varying in nothing from the Apostles, or ancient Bishops of Christ's Church for many hundred years after Christ. But the Popes of Rome and their adherents within these five hundred years have brought in a new Scholastical & Decretaline doctrine, especially since the conventicle of Trent, which neither the Apostles nor ancient Bishops ever knew, nay which is opposite to their doctrine and faith. It appeareth therefore, that this argument of succession doth rather make for us, then for our adversaries.  
Secondly, he beareth us in hand, that Luther and Calvin being pressed with this argument of Succession, did make the Church invisible. And that Melancthon, and the Magdeburgians dissenting from them, and overcome with proofs concerning the visibility of the Church, did grant it to be visible, yet so, as it did consist not in the external conspicuous succession of Bishops, and Counsels, but rather in those, which following the Apostolic Church and faith kept themselves from common corruptions of others. But not they did dissent, but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport. For all of us do affirm, that the universal Catholic Church is invisible, because it containeth all the members of Christ's Church of all times and all ages. Likewise all of us believe, that particular Churches are always visible, albeit not so, that every one is able to discern, 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 heretics and infidels would discern, which is the true Church, and cease to persecute it. Likewise we say, that the true Church is not always in peace and prosperity. Nay, oftentimes the same is persecuted, and driven to hide itself as it did in the Apostles time, and during the times of the first persecutions until the reign of Constantine, and as the Scriptures do foretell it, should do in the persecution under the reign of Antichrist. Ridiculously therefore doth he allege Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church. For they neither speak of the Catholic Church, as it comprehendeth all Christians, nor of the glory of the Church in all times. He doth also proclaim either his owneignorance, not setting down, what we hold, nor knowing how we distïnguish, or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine, that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to slander it, and to cavil with his adversaries. Finally, he doth lewdly and contumeliously speak of Christ's Church, hiding itself in time of persecution, terming it A company of few, obscure, and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadows and darkness, and known to few or none.  
Pag. 294. he cavilleth at M. Fox's words, where he saith, that commonly none see it, but such only 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 agreeth well. For albeit men be visible; yet this point, Which is the true Church, is not a matter of sense, but of the understanding, and the Church, as it is Christ's body, is mystical, albeit it consist of visible men.  
Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth us, How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdom, and how Cyprian inveigheth against the Martyrs of the Novatians, and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites, and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists. But to what purpose, God knoweth, unless he would either put us in mind of the false traitorous Massepriests and jebusites, that being put to death in England for felony and treason, as in the end, the secular Priests themselves confess, are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs, or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this ungodly comparison, that suffered death for the testimony of truth in Q. Mary's bloody reign. Which if he do, than he is as far guilty of their blood, as the wolves that shed it, and is rather to expect the vengeance of God, than any answer from man.  
In the same Chapter he endeavoureth to show some differences betwixt the Martyrs of the primitive Church, and us, as for example, that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lamb upon the altar. That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice, and Laurence his Deacon to dispense the Lords blood, and that, as Prudentius saith, The holy blood did fume in silver cups. That Cyprian said, Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi, & sacrificium Deo Patri offer. But first the difference, if any be, is in terms, and not in matters of faith. Secondly, we do not disallow these terms simply, if they be rightly understood, as the ancient Fathers meant them. Thirdly, the words of S. Andrew are drawn 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 needs be understood figuratively, unless they will have their sacrifice to be bloody. Lastly, these words do make more for us, then for the Papists. For that sacrifice, which Andrew and Cyprian do speak of (for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrew's Legend) doth signify only the representation of Christ's sacrifice in bread and wine. Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice understandeth bread and wine, and not Christ's body and blood really present. Panem & calicem mixtum vino, saith he, obtulit. And again: Sed & per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis & vini, sed & altaris & Apostolorum facit mentionem. Furthermore, the same show, that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cup 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 profess Christ. The real sacrifice of Christ's body and blood offered for quick and dead, out of these words cannot be proved.  
Afterward he telleth us p. 310. how Constantine built four Churches in Rome, dedicating them to our Saviour, to Saint john Baptist, S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. Laurence, adorning them with Images, etc. And having told his tale, he runneth out into a discourse of the glory of that Church, and in great pride asketh us, where our poor, obscure, and trodden down Church, as he calleth it, was at this time, and for 300. years before. But upon such small victories, he showeth himself a vain fellow, to make such triumphs. This tale of four Churches dedicated to Saints, and adorned with Images, is borrowed out of the Legend, and is repugnant to the Father's 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 honoured. 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 again, Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum. As for the spreading and splendour of Christ's Church in Constantine's time, the same argueth, that the Church is governed and beautified by godly Princes, such as Constantine was, rather than by godless Popes, such as Clement was. To his question I answer, that the Church in Constantine's time was that Church, with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate, and from which the Romanists are departed, subjecting themselves, not to such godly Princes, as Constantine was, but to the Pope, and to his ungodly Decretaline and profane school doctrine, which is divers from the faith of those times, as (God willing) we shall show anon. They do also come nearer to the old Heretics Simon Magus, the Gnostickes, Marcionists, Valentinians, Montanists and the rest mentioned by Parsons pag. 312. then we. To the Bishops of Rome, that suffered martyrdom, the Popes are as like, as Nero to Saint Peter.  
Pag. 314. and in the pages following he chargeth us with holding some heresies condemned in the primitive Church, As of the false Apostles, that believed only faith to be sufficient to salvation without works, of the Heretics mentioned by Ignatius apud Theodoretum Dial. 3. Who did not confess, that the Eucharist was the flesh of our Saviour Christ; of the Novatians, that did not anoint those, which were baptised by them, nor receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, nor grant Priest's power to absolve from sin; and of the Manichees, that denied man's Free-will. But these objections are nothing, but either calumniations, or mere cavils. For first we do not hold, that a bare and solitary faith devoid of works doth justify, as those false Apostles did, against whom S. james, S. Peter, and others do inveigh, and as the Papists in effect do, which make every wicked man professing their faith, and receiving their Sacraments a true member of Christ's body, and absolving hand over head all, that come to confession. Secondly we do not deny the Eucharist to be Christ's flesh sacramentally. Thirdly, we do not refuse absolution to the penitent, as did the Novatians, nor was Novatus condemned for denying Confirmation to be a Sacrament, (for neither the name, nor thing was then in use in the Church) but rather for neglecting a ceremony then used. Finally, we do not deny, that man sinneth voluntarily, as did the Manichees, but only that he hath not freedom of will, whereby he may discern, and do works tending to the attainment of the kingdom of heaven, as the Pelagians directly, and Papists after a sort do teach.  
Pag. 318. and 319. he saith, that Origen and other Fathers do invocate 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 Rhetorical Apostrophe or turning of their speech to the Saints and Angels, than a set form of prayer. Secondly, divers books cited for proof of this point seem either to be bastards, or else corrupted by falsaries. Thirdly, it is an absurd conceit, to attribute that, which is haroly to be proved of one or two Fathers, to all the rest, that speak so much against the same. Finally, there is great difference betwixt the words of the Fathers, and of the modern Breviaries, Missals, and Offices directly framed in honour of Angels and Saints, as we shall show (God willing) when we come to speak of that controversy.  
Unless therefore Rob. Parsons can find better arguments, he shall not prove, that the Church for 300. years after Christ, did dissent from the Church of England, in matters of faith and Sacraments. The like we may affirm of the next 300. years, viz. from Constantine to Gregory the first. And that shall appear by the simple arguments, that he bringeth to prove a difference betwixt us and the Church of those times. The Donatists (saith he) p. 329. said, that they were the only Church, and called the succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome, the chair of pestilence. He telleth us also how Saint Augustine, Optatus, and others, object against them, that they cast the blessed Sacrament of the altar to dogs, overthrew altars, broke Chalices and sold them, cast a bottle of Chrism out of the Church window, shaved Priests heads to take away their unction, turned Nuns out of their monasteries to the world, polluted all Church stuff. But what is all this to us, that neither take upon us to be the only Church, as the Papists and Donatists do: nor call the ancient Bishops of Rome, or their chair, the chair of pestilence? The Pope's chair we confess is the chair of pestilence, but Popes are no Bishops, but the heads of antichrist's kingdom. Furthermore, God forbid, that any of us should throw the Eucharist to dogs, or break Communion tables, or else abuse God's Ministers, or any thing dedicated to holy uses. But our accusers do commonly shave priests heads, and not seldom do priests and Friars dishonest Nuns, and make little account of their own Church stuff. Parson's therefore to make some show, as if we did agree with the Donatists, and himself and his comforts not, doth grossly belie Augustine, who hath little or nothing of that, which he is made to say; and lewdly salsify Optatus. For he doth not once name the Sacrament of the altar, but the Eucharist: nor speak of Monasteries, but only of women professing chastity, which he calleth Castimoniales. But such at that time lived without Monasteries, and were unlike to Nuns. Likewise the altars of Christians than were of wood: and this Chrism was reserved for extraordinary uses.  
Pag. 330. and 331. he chargeth us to hold with the Eunomians, and Novatians, Aerians, jovinian, helvidius, and Vigilantius. But first we do not say with Eunomius, that the committing of sins doth not hurt a man, so he have faith. Nor do we say, that he that is a true and faithful Christian, will commit grievous sins. Nor did Eunomius talk of the true Christian faith, but of his own faith. Secondly, we do not deny power to Priests to reconcile penitent sinners, as did the Novatians, or after a sort to forgive sins, that is, by God's word to loose sinners, and to declare their sins forgiven. Thirdly, Aerius was condemned for Arianisme, which we detest. He had also private opinions concerning set fasts, which our Church liketh not. Lastly, he condemned the order of the ancient Church, that used to make a commemoration of the dead, and to give thanks for them in the celebration of the Eucharist: whose doings, as we will not condemn, so their practice for manifold abuses brought in by Mass priests and Friars we are not bound to follow, every Church having liberty herein to edification. Fourthly, we admit not Iouinians heresy of equality of sins, neither was jovinian condemned either for saying, that every transgression of the law was mortal sin in his own nature, or for teaching the abuses of Monkish life and profession, as we do. Fiftly, we do not with helvidius oppugn the perpetual virginitic of the blessed Virgin, nor in all respects equal marriage with virginity, nor was he to be condemned, if in regard of merit of eternal life, he equalled marriage with birginitie. Finally, neither was Vigilantius to be condemned in speaking against the superstitious worship of dead men's bones, nay sometime of the bones of other creatures, or the abuse of burning tapers and candles at noon day, nor did Hierome, that wrote against him allow invocation of Saints, or the filthy and swinish life of Monks, that we condemn.  
To make some show, that the Church of England doth differ from the Church of Christ, from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor, and Gregory the first, 
a Pag. 333. and pages following  he allegeth first, that M. Fox speaketh nothing of these three ages, nor of the Doctors, that then flourished in the East or West Church, and in Britain itself, or of their doctrine. And all this he supposeth to have been omitted, because it made much against him, and nothing for him. Otherwise he thinketh, he would have set down somewhat, undertaking to set forth at large the whole race & course of the Church from Christ to our times. Next he saith, that the Magdeburgians in their fourth, fifth, and sixth Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the three ages from Constantine downward, find nothing for themselves, but rather against themselves: 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 speak confusedly, and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture, and in the paragraph 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 real presence, where they cite the Fathers abundantly, save in the matter of the sacrifice, where they reprehend them: and finally, in the controversy of Good-workes, satisfaction, invocation of Saints, and concerning ceremonies, where they reprehend the Fathers. But all this brabblement about M. Fox, and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose. For first, what if either they should have omitted, or spoken any thing, which they should not? It is a vain thing to imagine, that all this should be imputed to us. Secondly, the reason why M. Fox speaketh so little 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 adjoin ourselves to that Church. What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages, when the same is every where apparent in the Fathers of that age, whose faith, if we might have restored without the leaven of the Church of Rome lately brought in, the controversy betwixt us and our adversaries would soon be ended. Furthermore, it was not his purpose to handle controversies: and therefore no marvel, if in every question he did not set down the sentences of the Fathers. Thirdly, the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-will, repentance, the sacrifice, goodworks, invocation of Saints, and such like, mislike some of the Fathers. But he is a very simple idiot, that therefore would conclude, that they join with the Papists in their modern heresies. Likewise they allege the Fathers for proof of a certain real presence. But it is not that corporal and carnal presence of the body and blood of Christ, of which the Papists dream. Finally, albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians tax some one or two of the Fathers, or rather those authors, which have published counterfeit books under the name of the Fathers: yet in the matters of greatest moment they show the true Fathers to make, for us. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons, if leaving his bangling about these small advantages, he list to deal with us in any substantial point of controversy.  
In the 4. chapter of his second part, and divers chapters following, he handleth the descent of times from Gregory the first, unto the preaching of john Wicleffe, and therein spendeth much vain talk 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 divers frivolous ceremonies, by little and little entered, and Priests were separated by the Pope's practices from their lawful wives: 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 received. In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Universal Church, nor did he undertake to depose Kings before Gregory the 7. or to overrule all Churches. The Bishops of England took not themselves to be subject unto the Pope under pain of damnation, nor did he much encroach upon them before the times of Henry the second King of England. The doctrine of the carnal real presence, of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Mass, of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria, and of Images with the same worship, that is due to the Original, of the seven Sacraments, and of the degrees of merits of works, and works of supererogation, of the force of free-will in justification, of the Pope's two swords, and superiority over general Counsels, and his power in Purgatory, and in granting Indulgences and such like, was not then known in England, but was devised afterward by schoolmen and Canonists, and established by the Pope's Decretals, and wicked conventicles assembled by their commandment. Nay albeit the Popes by all means sought to subdue Christian Kings, and to bring all Ecclesiastical preferments to their own disposition, and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wives: 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 Gregory the first to Alexander the thirds time, was not subject to the Pope, nor had received the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Pope's late Decretals, and devised in the Conventicles of Lateran, Constance, Florence, Trent, and published in the profane disputes of schoolmen. The second is, that the tyranny of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England, increased by little and little until King Henry the eight his reign, and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entered into England after his time. Of which two points we may conclude, that the Church of England from the time of Austin until the time of Alexander the third, in fundamental matters of faith did communicate with us, and not with the modern Papists, whose principal corruptions have entered since.  
In the 9 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarreleth with Master Fox, for building the Church upon M. Wicleffe, Sir john Oldcastle, Husse, M. Luther, M. Calvin, Zuinglius, and others, holding, as he saith, many dangerous points of doctrine, and differing from themselves & from us, and many of them noted of divers great crimes. But while he quarelleth with others, he bewrayeth his own gross ignorance. For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downward, or to affirm, that there was no Church in the world for certain ages before Wicleffe: but rather to show, that the Church in divers 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 Germany began at length to discover. But in our times the same by Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and other godly men was both more openly discovered, and Christianly reform. Secondly, it is no marvel, if Wicleffe, and hus, and others, that first began to discover the abuses of Popery, did not see all. For God had appointed a certain time, when the man of sin should be revealed; and no man is so clear sighted, that he can see into all the abuses of Heretics, without help and direction of many. Neither is this to be ascribed more unto Wicleffe, and such, as have laboured in the reformation of the Church, then to others, which have their singular opinions, and by their errors declare themselves to be men. Furthermore, by this we collect, that we are to build our faith upon none, but the Apostles and Prophets, which by special direction of the holy Ghost have declared unto us the will of God. Thirdly, many heresies are falsely imputed both unto Wicleffe, and unto john Husse, and unto every one, that hath opposed himself against the Romish faction. As for example, they say that Wicleffe taught, That God must obey the Devil, and that john Husse added a fourth Person to the Trinity, matters contrary to the whole form of their doctrine. divers errors also they have ascribed to the Valdenses, Albigenses, and Bohemians. Neither may we marvel, if they have slandered the dead, seeing they spare not the living, making their credulous followers believe, That we make God the author of sin, and speak unreverently of Christ. They have also laid most false imputations upon Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and other our teachers. Further, we are not to marvel, if they have charged Sir john Oldcastle, and divers others the followers of Wicleffes doctrine with treasons, and rebellions, and other enormous crimes. For so did the heathen deal with the first Christians, as appeareth by the Apologies of Tertullian, Arnobius, and others. And now they cease not to exclaim against our doctrine, as if the same were enemy to the Magistrates authority: the which is not more trodden under foot by any, then by the Popes of Rome, and their agents. Fourthly, the Papists themselves have many singular opinions in divers points of doctrine. Why then should they impute unto us the dissensions of private 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 Trinity, Christ's incarnation, the Sacraments, God's 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 reform. In all the principal points concerning the abuses of Popery, both the Churches of England, Scotland, France, Germany, and other nations not subject to the yoke of Antichrist do very well agree. And we doubt not, by the grace of God, to see Antichrist confounded with the spirit of God's mouth shortly, by a general union in the rest.  
Finally, in his last chapter he compareth M. Fox to a crafty Broker, that useth fraud in selling of his wares, whereas the Romanists sell like royal Merchants. He delivereth also to his reader three differences betwixt the Papists & us, saying, first, That we contemn the Church, & next, that we define it falsely, & thirdly, that we assign common & obscure marks thereof, whereas the Papists do all contrary. But of this comparison, because it is his own, he may boldly take both parts to himself, and not without just cause. For as the Pope selleth Religion, and all divine matters in gross, and like a royal Merchant: so Parsons and such like pedlars and palterers fell, as they may, by retail, now bargaining for one part of the Church, then for another: now selling one sin and then another. In assigning his differences, he differeth not from himself, but as always, so now also he belieth his adversaries. For neither do we make so little estimation of the Church, as he reporteth, nor do we give such a definition of the Church as he imagineth, nor are our marks given out of the Church, either common, or improper. On the other side they value not the Church one rush, making the same a slave to Antichrist: nor do they define the Church aright, not touching the life and soul of it, but only certain outward qualities: nor do they bring other marks than those, that may fit the Pagans and Turks better than the Papists, as the name Catholic, universality, continuance, succession, unity, prosperity, and such like do show. If Parsons will maintain the contrary, let him answer a book of mine De Ecclesia, written against Bellarmine, wherein this is declared at large. If not that; yet let him leave his idle wandering discourse, and come to a point: and then we doubt not but to make his pedlary ware known. And thus an end of this wooden 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 modern Papists was not visible in the world for more than a thousand years after Christ, and never was fully settled, nor plainly visible in England.  
THe Church of Christ saith Hierome in Psalm. 133. consisteth not in walls, but in the truth of doctrine. There is the Church where is true faith. So likewise every Church is to be esteemed according to the doctrine, which it teacheth: and of the Church of Rome we are to make account, not according to the walls of the Churches there, but according to the doctrine, which now that Church professeth. If then there cannot be showed a Church in the world for a thousand years 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 years after Christ. Nay it is plain, that such a Church, as the Papists now have, was never yet planted in England. So far is Parsons from his account, when he supposeth, that the faith and Church of Rome, that now is, hath always continued since the first preaching of the Gospel, and been visible in England.  
That we say true, it appeareth first, for that no Church did ever esteem traditions and holy Scriptures with like affection before the decree of the conventicle of Trent ratified by Pius the fourth Anno Domini 1564. The Church of England before that time never had any such conceit of traditions, as to believe them to be the word of God, and equal to Scriptures.  
Secondly, no Church in the world did make the old Latin vulgar translation of the Bible authentical before that time.  
Thirdly, the modern Papists forbid men to read the Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence, and command the service to be said in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew: which languages the common people understand not. But such a Church and so malignant and envious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seen in the world before the assembly of Trent.  
4. For a thousand years after Christ, and longer, it was lawful for lay-men and all Christians to dispute, argue, and reason of matters of Christian Religion. And so long this Popish Church was not seen in the world, that prohibiteth lay-men so to do.  
5. The modern Papists teach, that Christ's natural body is both in heaven and earth, and upon every altar where any consecrated host is hanged, where he is neither felt, seen, nor perceived, and all at one time. But the Church until the times of the Trent conventicle ever believed, that Christ had a solid, visible, and palpable body. And certes, very strange it were if the Catholic and mystical body of Christ should 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 always. But this neither the Church of England, nor other Christian Church as yet could ever believe or comprehend.  
7. They teach, that Christians are not to believe the Scriptures to be Canonical, unless the Pope tell them so. They say also that the authority of Scriptures in regard of us doth depend upon the Church, that is, as they say, upon the Pope, Cardinals, mass-priests, Monks, and Friars. But the true Church hath always taken this to be derogatory to the Majesty of God, and of holy Scriptures.  
8. They teach, that the Pope hath two swords, and a triple crown as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. But the Church of England for a thousand years after Christ never saw, nor believed any such thing. Nay the English know well that Greg. the 7. was the first that took up arms against the Emperor.  
9 They teach, that the Pope hath power to depose Kings & to assoil subjects from their oaths of obedience. But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. showeth to have vin reputed a novelty, if not an heresy. The Church of England never saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King john's time, and then the same did not believe it, or allow it.  
10. The modern synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head, foundation, and spouse of Christ's Church. But no visible Church ever taught this, until of late time: the Church of England never held it, nor believed it.  
11. Now they think it lawful to suborn the subjects against their Prince, and to hire privy murderers & assassinors to cut the throat of Kings excommunicate, as appeareth by the excommunications of Paul the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England, of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soveragine Queen Elizabeth, and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorisms. Nay of late they have attempted by gunpowder to blow up the King and his Son albeit not excommunicated, and to massacre & murder the most eminent men in this kingdom, and wholly to overthrow the state. But the Church of England ever taught obedience to Princes, and disliked this damnable doctrine.  
12. They teach, that the Pope is above all general Counsels. But no Church ever believed this for a thousand four hundred years. The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decreed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian.  
13. They teach, that the Pope is supreme judge of all matters of controversy in religion. But the Church of England ever thought it a matter absurd, to make a blind man judge of colours, or an unlearned & irreligious fellow to be judge of matters of learning and religion. Now who knoweth not, that most Popes are such? Of Benedict that lived in the Emperor Henry the 2. his days. Sigebertus in ann. Do. 1045. writeth, that he was so rude & ignorant, that he could not read his breviary, but was enforced to choose another to do it. Benedictus, saith he, qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. invaserat, cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas, secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit.  
14. They now fall down before the Pope and kiss his feet; and when he list to go abroad, they carry him like an idol upon men's shoulders. But no Church for above a thousand years after Christ did ever kiss the feet of Antichrist, or adore him. Nay the Church of England did always know full well, that S. Peter a far holier and honester man than Clement the 8. or Paul the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lie 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 gloss upon john the 22. his Extravagant, cum inter nonnullos. de verb. signif. Commonly the Canonists honour him as a God on the earth. But no Church did ever abase itself so low, as to use these high terms to so base a fellow. The Church of England, though patient in bearing the Pope's injuries, did never use any such slavish forms of flattery.  
16. They believe, that the Pope can change kingdoms, and take a kingdom from one, and give it to another. Potest mutare regna, saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca 6. atque uni auferre atque alteri confer. But this no Church of God ever believed. The Church of England, certes, when King john would have made his Kingdom tributary to the Pope, disallowed and detested the fact: and when the Pope would have deposed King Henry the eight, manfully resisted him. So did the French likewise oppose themselves against julius the 2. that went about to wrest the Sceptre out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth.  
17. They believe, that Abbots and Friars may by privilege of the Pope give voices in Counsels, and that an Abbot may ordain Clerks, as appeareth by the practice of their late conventicles, and by the privileges granted to the Benedictines. But all ancient Counsels declare, that Counsels are assemblies not of Monks & Friars, but of Bishops: and all Churches according to the Canons of the Apostles as they are called, acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops, & not to blockish statues, called Popes.  
18. They believe that Cardinals only now have voice in the election of the Bishop of Rome. But this no Church believed for a thousand years after Christ. The Church of England ever held rather the ancient Canons, that gave the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people, than these late humorous Canons, and Decretals of Popes.  
19 They believe, that Monks are Clergy men, and necessary members of the Church. But no Church for a thousand years after Christ ever believed it.  
20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and Dominicke and other begging societies, were not seen in the world before the times of Innocent the third. But these orders are counted principal ornaments of the Romish church.  
21. No Church ever believed for a thousand years, that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vows, or that Friars were to be called religious men, or members of the Church.  
22. For above a thousand years no Church ever allowed, that Monks and Friars should make vows to the blessed virgin, to Saints, and the founders of Monkish orders, as now they do in the Romish Church.  
23. Ancient Christian Churches believed, that marriage was not dissolved or separated by entering into Monasteries, neither that such as had contracted or married themselves might depart into Monasteries, & live asunder. Nay they believed Christ that teacheth, that man is not to separate that, which God hath joined together, rather than the Pope.  
24. The Papists believe, that the vows of Chastity, Poverty, and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation, and deserve a higher degree of glory in heaven, than works commanded by God's law. But no Church of Christ ever believed this.  
25. The form of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope, with two swords, and a guard of Swissers, of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gowns, of shaven mass-priests, Monks and Friars, and of a multitude of ignorant people, that subject themselves to the Pope, and cry Miserere nobis. But such a deformed company was never seen in the world for a thousand two hundred years. Let Parsons therefore take heed, lest while he contendeth that Christ's Church was always visible in the world, he prove not the Romish Church not to be Christ's Church.  
26. God prohibiteth the shaving of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests, Non radent caput, neque barbam, saith Moses Leuit. 19 neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras. We read also, that this shaving, and whipping, or lancing of men's selves came from the priests of Baal, and from the Gentiles. We are not therefore to think, that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses, rontrary to God's word. In the Church of England such shaving, and lashing, and cutting of men's selves for a thousand years and more, was not commonly received, nor practised.  
27. In England we do not read for a thousand years, that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his provisions or commendaes, or that he disposed of Ecclesiastical livings. Robert Parsons would be desired to show this out of his reading, and what visible Church it was that allowed it.  
28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties until 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 appear, that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties, and Peter's patrimony was invisible until their times?  
29. The Church doth take his form partly of doctrine, and partly of laws. But the school doctrine of Aquinas and his followers was not much known before the year 1000. and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law until Gregory the 9 his time. Doth it not then follow necessarily, that the Church of Rome that now is, hath risen up out of the earth, and that but of late time?  
30. For more than a thousand years we do not read that any Church believed to be saved by the merits of S. Francis, S. Dominike, or other Saints. They are therefore of a late stamp, that believe this.  
31. The Church of Rome never received the doctrine of the Pope's Indulgences, or believed his Bulls of jubiley, unless it were within this two or three hundred years. The true Church ever abhorred them.  
32. The ancient true Church never did believe, that the Pope was able to fetch souls out of Purgatory with his Indulgences.  
33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not received of any known Church, until such time as the Schoolmen taught this strange doctrine.  
34. The Missals, breviaries and offices, that now are received by the Popish Church, were not known before the conventicle of Trent. The Church of England used other forms in former times.  
35. The Church of England likewise for more than a M. years did not call upon Saints in public Litanies. Neither did this, or any other church in old time say Masses & offices in honour of Angels, Saints, and the blessed virgin Mary.  
36. That Church that useth to consecrate paschal lambs, and to make holy water to drive away devils, was not visible for one thousand two hundred years and more. In England, Parsons cannot show any Church allowing these forms before that time.  
37. Nicholas the 2. in that chap. Ego Berengarius. dist. 2. de Consec. was the first that taught his Romish adherents, that Christ's flesh was handled with hands, and torn with teeth.  
38. The first that taught, that a dog or a hog eating a consecrated host did swallow down Christ's 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 mass-priests & their followers do hold the same opinion, contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times.  
39 The Church of England never believed, that Christians were eaters of man's flesh, and Cannibals. But the modern Romish Church holdeth, that Christians take Christ's flesh with their teeth, and swallow down his flesh and blood into their bellies.  
40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents believe, that the bread was transubstantiat into Christ's flesh, and the wine into his blood in the Sacrament. Parson's if he can tell any news of transubstantiation before his time, shall do his friends good pleasure not to conceal them. Otherwise the beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be derived no higher than from Innocentius his reign.  
41. The same man did first ordain, that both men and women should yearly confess their sins to a Priest. Which showeth the original of the popish Church, confessing her sins in the priest's ear.  
42. The mass-priests sacrificing the very body and blood of Christ for quick and dead, received no authority for their massing sacrifice, before the time of the conventicle of Trent. Who then would not marvel, that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church, whose massing sacrifice had no certain establishment before that time?  
43. The Church never used to hang the sacrifice of Christ's body over the Altar before the times of Honorius the third. It is not therefore much more than three hundred years since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christ's 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 believe only from the times of the conventicle of Constance. From thence therefore the Church believing this point took her beginning.  
45. That the Priest doth work three miracles, as oft as he doth consecrate, and that all mass-priests are workers of miracles, no true Church can believe, or ever did believe. Only the miraculous idiots, that subject themselves to Antichrist, and receive the Romish Catechism prescribed them by the conventicle of Trent, are bound to believe it.  
46. For a thousand years Christ's Church never knew any private Mass without Communion. The Church therefore that useth private Masses without Communion, is but a new upstart Church.  
47. The Communion under one kind was not established by law before the conventicle of Constance. This therefore doth show also, that the Romish church communicating under 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 believeth these things, and saith Masses for fair weather, and rain, against the Plague, and for all purposes, yea for sick Horses and mesel Swine.  
49. The first that set down any certainty for 7. Sacraments was he that borrowed the name of the conventicle of Florence in the instruction given 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 never believed, that these are Sacraments, or were ordained by Christ to be used by the Church in the form prescribed by the conventicle of Florence. Would Parsons show, when and where Christ instituted these two Romish Sacraments, he might resolve his followers of a great doubt, and do himself great honour.  
51. Bellarmine teacheth, that all Sacraments do justify the receivers ex opere operato: and like it is, that the Romanists, as becometh good scholars, do follow their master's doctrine. But sure no Church of Christ hitherto did ever believe, that Christians were justified by Marriage, Orders, Confirmation, or extreme Unction.  
52. The true Church of Christ did ever believe, that Christ did perfectly satisfy for the sins of the whole world. It must needs therefore be a new congregation, and opposite to Christ's Church, that teacheth or believeth, that every Christian is to satisfy himself for the temporal pains of sins committed after Baptism.  
53. In the conventicle of Florence we read, that it was first decreed, that such as departed this life without satisfaction for sins committed, are purged with Purgatory fire, and that such may be ŕelieved by Masses, orisons & alms. Bellarmine lib. 2. de Purgat. ca 13. telleth us, How by many revelations it hath been declared, that souls are tormented there by Devils. It cannot therefore be an ancient Church, whose faith is patched up by such fellows, and consisteth of such strange novelties.  
54. Whether Indulgences do profit souls in Purgatory ex condigno, or only ex congruo, the matter seemeth not yet resolved, as may appear by Bellarmine's 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 resolved upon them.  
55. Boniface the 8. did first institute jubilees. Clement the 6. from a hundred years 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 Constantine's time, and that it was not heard of before the days of Boniface the eight.  
56. The Romanists worship the Cross, and Crucifix, and Images of the Trinity with Latria. But such an Image-worshipping Church is not to be found until such time as Thomas Aquinas taught this idolatrous doctrine.  
57 They kiss Images, bow to them, offer incense to them, and set up lights, and say Masses before them. But these tricks were not frequented in the Church of England, for a thousand years, nor ever in any true Christian Church were publicly received.  
58. They call upon the blessed Virgin, as their gate of salvation, and pray to Saints, and Angels, as mediators of intercession. They do also make vows to them, and say Masses in their honour, all which prove the erection of their congregations to be new, and of a late device.  
59 They believe, that S. Rock and S. Sebastian cure the plague, that Apollonia cureth toothache, that S. Lewes hath horses in his protection, and S. Antony pigs, of which all true Christians may be much ashamed.  
60. With the Collyridians the Romanists offer a rake in the honour of the blessed Virgin, and with many other heretics bring in divers heresies, and not only novelties. Finally, for their own impure traditions they leave the observance of God's holy laws. Let them therefore henceforth leave to vaunt of the antiquity of their Church, or to tell us of novelties, seeing their Church holding these novelties must needs be new and of a late erection.   

CHAP. XIII. That Parsons maketh no conscience to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures.  
THus we see the substance of Parsons his two first books of Three Conversions quashed, and brought to nothing. But because he hath committed divers other faults, which in the sequel of our discourse we could not particularly insist upon, we have thought it good to refer their further examination to this place. For whatsoever brags his followers do make of this brave work, yet by examination it will appear, that the Author hath foully abused and mistaken Scriptures, corrupted, falsified, and falsely alleged Fathers, and other Authors, bragged of himself and his comforts most vainly, taken things in question as granted most simply, erred in histories and other authors most childishly, applied Scriptures and spoken of God and matters concerning God most blasphemously, behaved himself toward his Prince most disloyally, lied and calumniated honest men most impudently, alleged matters making against himself most sottishly: and to reduce all into a brief sum; that this whole treatise is nothing else, but a farthel of false allegations, corruptions, lies and fooleries.  
That he maketh no conscience to wrest and pervert the words of holy Scriptures, it appeareth by these particulars. In the front of his book, which he like a man of a front & face without shame entitleth, A treatise of Three Conversions 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 inquire of ancient times, and thereof to learn Gods great works in delivering his people, he applieth 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 days of our forefathers, etc. he instnuateth, that we are to look back to the Pope's Decretals, and corruptions of former times. But the holy Scripture sendeth us to the Prophets & patriarchs, and the people of God, which were eye witnesses of Gods special favour towards his people. Both the places do utterly overthrow 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 given, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him: to his complices the Papists. But he leaveth 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 believe in Christ, holding it sufficient to believe as the Pope doth, who for the most part believeth no more than the great Turk.  
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 speak an untruth, and applying his words to the Papists, who never suffered for Christ, nor were ever called before any bar for his sake, but rather for treason and rebellion, and maintaining the faction of Antichrist, to whose service they have consecrated themselves. He doth also mistake the Apostles meaning utterly, where he saith, The Apostle gloried of himself and his fellows. For he doth not once mention his fellows, nor glory of himself 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 received the word of God with joy in the holy Ghost, in great tribulation. But Parsons applieth these words to the Papists. Let indifferent men therefore judge how madly he applieth, and biolently wresteth holy Scriptures to serve his lewd purpose. For Papists follow not Christ, nor his Apostles, but Antichrist & his false apostles the mass-priests and jebusites. The word of God in vulgar tongues they receive not to be read publicly: nor do they joy so much in the holy Ghost, as in their own devilish practices, treacheries, and murders. They suffer no tribulation, nor affliction of mind or body, but live in all delights & pleasures of the world, rather following the sect of the Epicures, than the piety of Christians. Neither can it be showed wherein the Papists of England may be resembled in any thing to the Christians of Macedonia, unless it be, in that they be enemies of the cross 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 evil applied, but it is worse translated: for to the text he addeth these words published every where throughout the world, and leaveth out these, that we need not to speak any thing.  
These words of God by his Prophet Isay, chap. 1. I will turn my hand upon thee, and purge away thy dross, till thou be made pure, and will take away thy tin: are so absurdly applied to his consorts, that profess a religion full of dross and superstition, a religion most impure and full of heretical corruption, a religion full of base metal, and that teacheth her clients to worship Images of tin & lead, the while he endeavoureth to praise the Papists, he doth utter words that do utterly confound both them & their drossy Religion.  
Intus pugnae, foris timores, saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 7. But Parsons to show that he maintaineth a perverse 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 & division betwixt the Secular Priests and the jebusites throughout England. Further, if unity be a mark of the Church, as his consorts pretend, than did he well perceive, that such divided companies as the Secular Priests & jebusites cannot belong to the Church, and therefore thought it best to corrupt the Apostles words.  
Matth. 8. we read, how Christ arose and rebuked the winds and sea, and how there followed a great calm. But Parsons wickedly applieth these words to the Pope, for Christ honouring Antichrist, and giving 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 own house, nor stop the overflowing of Tiber. Nay albeit he endeavour to stop the breaths of true preachers, yet shall the sword of the word of God issuing out of their mouths lay his kingdom waste, and destroy the fortresses of his Antichristian state.  
1. Reg. 3. Heli the priest submitteth himself to the will of God, foretelling the certain destruction of his house, saying, It is the Lord, let him do whatsoever seemeth good in his eyes. But Parsons doth impiously apply them to the King's Majesty, disloyally as it seemeth, wishing and prophesying of some such like destruction to the King's house, and lineage, as happened to Heli and his issue: and this the gunpowder and undermining Papists have of late attempted.  
In these words Hebrews 5. Didicit ex iis, quae passus est, obedientiam: Parsons leaveth out the word, obedientiam, and where the Apostle approprieth them to Christ, he detorteth them to the King.  
In his Preface alleging the words of Christ Matth. 24. he maketh himself to say, That such times of heresy and contradiction should come, when one sect would say, here is Christ, and another, there is Christ. Where we may see manifestly, that he neither speaketh of divers sects, nor of that contradiction or heresies of divers sects, but saith indefinitely, If any say here is Christ, or there is Christ, believe him not. And this directly maketh against every several sect of Papists, who pretend that Christ's body is contained in pixes, and lieth lurking under the accidents of consecrated hosts, and is offered by polshorne prièsts in every corner of their Churches.  
Citing the words of Peter, Act. 10. who saith, That Christ was not manifested to all the people, but to certain 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 suspicion of any such matter.  
Out of the words of Mark. c. 16. he concludeth, That we are to captivate our understanding not only to the obedience of Christ, but also to those that preach unto us. But there is great difference betwixt the incredulity of those that would not believe the Apostles teaching Christ's resurrection, of which Mark speaketh, and the piety of such, as believe not the Friars, Monks and mass-priests, which are the false Apostles sent out by Antichrist, teaching the Popes Decretals, and Romish forged traditions.  
Pag. 21. he endeavoureth to prove by S. Peter's words Act. 15. that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles. But S. Paul Galat. 2. showeth, that the Gospel over the circumcision was committed to Peter, and the Gospel over the uncircumcision to himself. Act. 15. he saith nothing, but that God appointed that the Gentiles should by his mouth hear the word of the Gospel. But that may be true in case any number of the Gentiles should hear him preach the Gospel. The words of Peter certes do not exclude others.  
Pag. 441. rehearsing the words of Daniel. c. 2. he applieth them to the Church of Rome, as if the church were that kingdom, that shall never be dissipated, and shall consume & wear out all other kingdoms: but by the sequel of the text it appeareth, that they are to be understood of the universal Church and kingdom of Christ, and not of any one particular congregation, much less of the synagogue of Rome, that is now begun to be dissipated by the true preachers of God's word on one side, and is greatly straited by the Turk on the other side. He doth also fraudulently leave out these words in his quotation, Et regnum eius alteri populo non dabit, lest he should thereby declare, that every particular city and people is excluded from the claim of the right of the universal kingdom of Christ. And with this faith he citeth other Scriptures.   

CHAP. XIIII. A Catalogue of divers falsifications, false allegations, and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church, and other Authors committed by Rob. Parsons.  
IN civil causes to deal untruly, it is but falsity. But in matters of faith, to use false dealing, doth beside falsity imply impiety. He therefore that was not afraid to force Scriptures, will not spare to forge and falsify the Fathers, and other Authors, as may appear by the practice of Rob. Parsons. To prove that S. Augustine said, That Christians ought to travail by sea and land, countries and kingdoms to seek out the truth and certainty of Catholic Religion, he citeth in his Preface first Possidonius in vita Augustini, and next Augustine himself 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 Catholic religion, and the certainty thereof, we need neither to pass the Sea, nor to travail to Jerusalem or Rome, but are rather to search the books of holy Scripture, which teach the same sufficiently.  
He saith, that S. Augustine lib. de morib. Eccles. c. 17. and Chrysostome in a certain Homily reprehend greatly the sluggishness of divers men in their days, that seeing sects and heresies to arise, and diversities of religion in almost every country, did not bestir themselves 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 diversities of religions, but only exhorteth Christians to embrace the Christian faith earnestly. The which doth concern Popery nothing, which hath been sown in God's field long after the first planting of the Christian faith.  
Augustine tractat. 73. in joan. hath these words, Haec est laus fidei, si quod creditur, non videtur. To these words Parsons addeth the word merit, and translateth them thus, The praise or merit of faith stands in this, that the thing be not seen which is believed. He should have said thus, Herein consisteth the praise of faith, if that be believed, that is not seen. And this overthroweth the doctrine of the Papists, that teach, that the Catholic Church which we believe in our creed, is visible. He maketh Ambrose to say thus lib. 1. de Abraham. ca 3. If a grave honourable person in this life, especially if he be of high authority and our superior, will take it in disdain to be asked a proof, for that he affirmeth, how much more ought God to be credited, when he proposeth unto us a matter above our reach or capacity? But therein he showeth himself neither grave nor honourable, to impute his own sayings to so grave a Father. S. Ambrose saith only, How unworthy a matter were it, to believe the testimonies of men concerning others, and not to believe God's oracles concerning himself? Quam indignum, ut humanis testimonijs de alio credamus, dei oraculis de se non credamus? This also toucheth the Papists very near, who will not believe holy Scriptures, which are Gods oracles, without the testimony of the Pope.  
Pag. 3. he saith, That Eleutherius converted King Lucius and his subjects by the preaching of Damianus and his fellows; and for proof allegeth 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 fellows, or speak of the conversion of Lucius his subjects. Furthermore it is absurd to say, that Eleutherius did convert the Britain's by Damianus. For if Damianus preathed unto them, than did he convert them, and not Eleutherius.  
Pag. 7. alleging Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 34. he maketh him say, that Austin and his fellows entered into Canterbury in Procession, with a cross, and the image of our Saviour in a banner. But first he misseth the chapter alleging the 34. for the 26. Next he speaketh more than his author doth warrant him. for he neither speaketh of procession, which was a later device, nor of the image of our Saviour in a banner. Crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam saith he, & imaginem Domini salvatoris in tabula depictam, that is, carrying a silver cross for an ensign, and an image of our Lord & Saviour painted on a table. So it appeareth they neither louged a crucifix with them, nor prayed to the cross, nor worshipped Christ's 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 Christ's institution.  
Pag. 11. out of Eusebius he saith, That Peter sat Bishop of Rome for 25. years together. And out of Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglor. c. 3. that there began to be such war in Brittany, that Claudius resolved to go thither with the admiration of the whole world. But neither doth Eusebius in his story, nor any other good author say, that Peter sit Bishop of Rome 25. years together, neither doth Bede in the place mentioned speak of wars in Brittany, or of the admiration of the world in regard of his journey.  
Pag. 12. rehearsing the words of Malmesburiensis in fastis an. Christi 86. he addeth these words, and brought into a perfect form of province, which is both a notorious forgery & falsity.  
Pag. 19 he allegeth a counterfeit Decretal under the name of Innocentius, where he affirmeth most falsely, that all the Churches of Africa and divers other countries there named were converted by S. Peter, or his successors. To this counterfeit epistle Parsons also addeth these words, or his scholars, therein declaring himself to be a master in forgery.  
Pag. 25. he allegeth out of Cyprian Epist. 45. That he glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa, and all the other Churches under her in Mauritania and Numidia had received 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 appear by Pamelius his edition of Cyprian, but more clearly by older copies. Neither can Parsons himself make these words good out of any other place of Cyprian.  
Pag. 26. where Tertullian li. de Praeser. advers. Haeret. useth the testimony of divers Churches, as well, as of that of Rome, he only mentioneth Rome, and concealeth the authority 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 Catholic then to say, they were daughters and children of the Church of Rome. But it seemeth he dreamt, when he wrote these things: if not, than he lied 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 urge this consequent against Heretics, to wit, that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome; then ought it to run to her in all doubts & difficulties of matters of faith. Thus doth he write, & this he affirmeth, with one breath belying divers Fathers. And that shall himself perceive, if he list to allege their words. We may easily imagine the same to be true, for that the consequent is so absurd. For if all Churches were to have recourse to their mother Church for decision of controversies concerning the faith: then were the Church of Rome and all others to derive their decisions concerning matters of faith from jerusalem. But this, Parsons himself will not grant.  
Pag. 30. he telleth a tale of one Beatus a Briton, who being converted to the faith, as he saith, was sent by joseph to Rome to S. Peter the head of the Apostles, to be better instructed and confirmed. And this he delivereth to his reader, as testified by B. Rhenanus lib. 3. rerum Germa. sub Hello, and Pantaleon de viris German. part. 3. But he doth grossly abuse his reader in telling gross untruths upon the credit of these witnesses, who only mention this Beatus, but report no such matter of him. Further Rhenanus doth no otherwise account of this report, then as of a Monkish fable, and thereupon saith, That he findeth small help from the Chronicles of Monks, to furnish his story.  
Pag. 33. he telleth us, that few of the Britain's observed Easter after the manner of the Eastern Church, and fathereth this fable upon Bede in divers places. But Bede himself lib. 2. hist. Anglor. cap. 2. refuteth his foolish tale, showing, that Austin objected this observance to all the Bishops of Britain, and how they refused to leave the same.  
Pag. 42. he urgeth an Epistle set out under Innocents' name, and saith, That the British Churches are put among the rest. But neither are they there once mentioned, nor is this Decretal Epistle to be esteemed, being plainly counterfeit.  
Pag. 43. he citeth Orosius hist. lib. 2. and saith, that he calleth Innocentius an holy Father. But there is neither holiness, nor honesty in fathering lies upon holy Fathers.  
Pag. 45. and in divers places he citeth Eusebius his Chronicles, yet he is simple, that perceiveth not, that those Chronicles were never written by Eusebius: and shall be much intricated, if he confess all therein written to be true and perfect. There it is said, That S. Peter sat 25. years at Antioch, which Parsons will not confess. In the margin against the year 146. it is said, Hîc omissa est linea de Pio. Parsons for the 146. year after Christ allegeth the 144. year.  
Pag. 46. for proof, that the keeping of Easter contrary to the Roman use was condemned as an heresy, 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 alleged 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 uniform observation of Easter. But neither of them affirmeth them to be heretics, that did not observe that order. Nor is it to be reputed heresy, not to observe all Canons, that concern such ceremonies. Nay it cannot be proved, that Vlfride saith, That this error might be tolerable in them, that lived so distant from the sea Apostolic, in a corner of the world, albeit this glozing parasite of the sea Apostatike of Rome, do affirm it, pag. 48.  
Pag. 49. he belieth Marianus Scotus, Prosper, Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor. cap. 19 and other authors making them to say, That Celestine sent Patritius and Palladius to convert the Irish and Scots. For neither do the authors mentioned speak of more, than one of these two, nor can he make his assertion good by the testimony of other authors.  
Pag. 50. he saith, that Pelagius crept into many learned, and godly men's love, and friendship, and above others with Paulinus and S. Augustine. And for proof he quoteth S. Augustine's Epistle 105. and lib. 2. de Bon. Perseveran. 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. Augustine's, but it is also said, that he disliked his talk. Far 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 Roman use, viz. for the time of Easter. His words are only 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 Roman use was hard. But he forgeth a deposition, which his witness will never agnize.  
Pag. 112. he maketh Ambrose to say, That the substance of one body is changed into another. But that holy Father hath no such words, as this falsary hath reported out of his writings.  
Pag. 117. boldly he affirmeth, that in the writings of Athanasius, Hilary, Optatus, Basil, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Cyrill and other more ancient Fathers there is every where mention made of the doctrine, which Papists maintain concerning the Pope, the Mass, Transubstantiation and Images. But it is a bald course to say every where, when neither himself, nor Bellarmine a far better disputer than he, is able any where to find the Pope to be supreme judge of controversies, and Christ's vicar general, and that he cannot err, or that Christ's body and blood is offered in the Mass by the Priest for quick and dead, and in honour of Saints, or that the substance of bread and wine is turned into Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, or that any Images are to be worshipped with Latria, and such like popish doctrines. Blushed he not then, to belly so many Fathers, in so many matters, and all with one breath?  
Pag. 128. rehearsing certain words of the Magdeburgians concerning factions and opinions, he addeth these words: Among them, that profess the Gospel, which they have not. He taketh also the word Communicationem, from their sentence concerning the presence of Christ's body.  
Pag. 129. in the allegation out of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers. 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 never thought. Lastly, by tradition he giveth his reader to understand, 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 show, that there was conformity of Religion throughout Christendom, except only in some places of the world, where were certain relics of Pelagians, and Eutychians and other Heretics, for the first he allegeth Gregory lib. 5. Epist. 14. and for the second Greg. lib. 10 in Iob cap. 29. Whereas in the first place he only mentioneth & Pelagian book, and in the second doth not so much as speak one word of the Eutychians, and in neither hath any word concerning the uniformity of Religion throughout Christendom.  
Pag. 188. to prove the word Mass he allegeth Augustine's Serm. 237. and 251. de Tempore. Concil. Milevit. 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 grossly belied. For how could they writing in Greek speak of the Latin Mass? Secondly, the two Sermons ascribed to S. Augustine, as the rest also De Tempore are counterfeit. And yet nothing is therein concerning the Popish Mass. Thirdly, the Council of Milevis speaking of Missae or dimissions of the people by certain blesing, and the fourth Council of Carthage by the word Missa, understanding the dismission of the Catechumeni, maketh nothing for the Popish Mass. These authors therefore are fond and falsely alleged.  
Pag. 201. he telleth, how Patritius was sent to the Scots after Palladius, and for evidence bringeth forth 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 accounteth the enumeration of the Bishops of Rome a full proof against Heretics. But he abuseth this holy Father, and belieth him. For of this full proof he hath not one word. Further, he speaketh of Churches, & not only of the Church of Rome, and with the succession of Bishops joineth 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 allegeth a place out of S. Augustine, lib. cont. Epist. fundam. cap. 4. touching succession, as if he made that a principal motive to embrace the Christian faith, and a proper mark of the Church, whereas that holy Father reckoneth that among, and after others, and no way accounteth it a mark of the Church.  
Pag. 282. S. Augustine lib. de Vtilit. cred. c. 7. is alleged for proof of the succession of the Church of Rome; but falsely. For he speaketh of the successions of divers Bishops in the whole Christian Church, which overthroweth the pretended prerogative of the Romish Church.  
Pag. 291. S. Augustine in Psal. 44. & 47. & lib. 2. contr. litter. Petil. and other Fathers are alleged, to prove the Church to be so visible, that every one may see it, and know it. But it seemeth our adversary cited them at all adventure. For in some of these places little mention is made of the Church, and in none of them is his intention proved.  
Pag. 305. To prove these words found in the Legend to have been uttered by S. Andrew, Ego omnipotenti Deo, qui unus & verus est, immolo quotidiè, etc. 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 testimony lib. 3. hist. cap. 27. is alleged to prove the sending of Willibrord with eleven companions towards the conversion of Germany. But the Chapter being read doth confute our adversaries falsehood.  
Pag. 401. To prove that Athens had no schools of learning in it, when that woman, that was afterward Pope, & called john the eight is reported to have studied there, Zonaras and Cedrenus in vita Michael. & Theod. Anno Christi 856. are produced for witnesses: but falsely and absurdly. For no such matter is to be gathered out of them.  
Pag. 472. He maketh S. Augustine lib. 1. quaest. evang. q. 38. and Tractat. 2. in Epist. joan. to say, that it is as easy to see in all ages, where the true visible Church goeth, as to see the Sun at noon time, when it shineth clearest. But this is a trick of his false dealing. For in the first place he saith only, That the Church is rightly called Lightning, because it breaketh out of the clouds: which showeth, that the Church is sometime darkened with clouds, and not seen. And in the second he hath nothing but these words of the Psalm, in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum. Which do plainly demonstrate, the Church being like to the Sun, that the same may be hidden or darkened, as the Sun is hidden in the night, and in the day time obscured with clouds. And such is the man's honest dealing with other Fathers.   

CHAP. XV. Certain examples of Robert Parsons his Thrasonical brags, and beggarly craving of matters in question.  
COmmonly we find by experience, that the greatest bragger's perform lest. If no man else, yet Rob. Parsons doth verify it by his example. For albeit he boasteth much, yet when it cometh to performance, he beggeth matters in question, rather than proveth them. In his Epistle dedicatoris he braggeth of undoubted Charters, Enrolments, Evidences, writings, and witnesses, which he saith he will bring forth for proof of the Romish religion, and giveth out great words of his future doughty deeds. Yet when we come to the examination of his best proofs, we find that his witnesses depose either nothing for him, or much against him, that his evidences are evident demonstrations of his own weakness & vanity, and that in his own writings he hath enroled himself a bragging fool in great letters.  
There also he telleth us further, how he produceth the judgements, censures, sentences, and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world, to wit, the determination of the highest Ecclesiastical Tribunals in favour of his consorts the Papists of England. But this shameless brag is refuted by the whole course of his worthless work. For neither doth he handle any one principal point of faith in controversy, nor doth he produce the Canons of lawful general Counsels, which have sovereign authority in external government, to prove the doctrine of the Papists, but only prateth idly of counterfeit Decretals, and mentioneth forged instruments, suborned witnesses, and most weak surmises not worth one chip. Furthermore, where he calleth Counsels the highest Tribunals of the Church, he doth as it were with his putative Father's sledge batter the Pope's chair in pieces.  
Thirdly, he vaunteth of the honourable course of true obedience to God in matters of the soul, and loyal behaviour towards temporal Princes in all worldly affairs held by Papists. And this he saith is glorious both before God and man. But the man's notorious vanity deserveth to be hated both of God and man. For how can they be thought to hold a right course of obedience toward God, that prohibit the reading of God's word in the Church in tongues understood? And how may they seem careful in matters of the soul, that bring in new and strange worships of God, and for Christ serve Antichrist?  
The disloyalty of Papists is too too apparent not only in the rebellions of England and Ireland, and their treacherous plots against his Majesty and his predecessors, but also in their doctrine, teaching and professing, that Kings are the Pope's vassals, and that he hath power to take away their Crowns, and to assoil subjects from their obedience. But if any doubted of their loyalty before, now he may be resolved not only by their treacherous plot to blow up the Parliament house, but also by their open rebellion in Warwikeshire.  
Speaking of the fact of Pope Clement commanding his vassals in England to keep silence, he boasteth of it, as of a miracle. But it is no marvel, to see the slaves of Antichrist obedient to his command. It were rather miraculous, if they should follow the laws of God, and submit themselves to their lawful Princes, and renounce the abominations of Antichrist.  
In the latter end of his Epistle he braggeth, That supposing Christ to be Christ and his promises true, he will (forsooth) by his doughty discourse of Three Conversions decide all the controversies betwixt us and the Papists, and that, as he professeth, with certain sequel of argument, and necessary demonstration. But his blustering brags are passed without effect, and his clients rest more doubtful than before. Nay his arguments are so ridiculous, that indifferent men do scorn them, and his demonstrations so lousy, that it appeareth plainly, that he is better affected to Antichrist, then to Christ, and groundeth his faith rather on the Pope's Decretals, then holy Scriptures.  
Pag. 114. he beareth his reader in hand, that really and substantially he is able to prove our doctrine to be hèresie, and to show the beginnings and authors thereof. But his shows are declared to be shadows, and the substance of his discourse is disproved, as a pack of real and gross fooleries. Sooner shall he transubstantiate himself into a mess of Mustard, then either maintain the mass of Popish heresies, or disprove the substance of our doctrine.  
Neither doth he more insolently boast of his own doughty deeds, then childishly beg, and take matters in question as granted. In the Epistle Dedicatory, and divers other places, Papists are still called Catholics, and Popish superstition covered and dignified by the name of Catholic Religion. Matters by all true Christians utterly denied, and by infinite particulars disproved, and apparently false. For how can they be truly esteemed Catholics, that embrace the particular faith of the Church of Rome, neither taught by the Prophets, nor Apostles of Christ, nor known to the ancient Fathers of the Church? Or how can a particular, heretical, superstitious & idolatrous Religion be reputed Catholic?  
There also he supposeth the ancient monuments of the Church to be charters, and evidences for the modern Romish Religion. A matter always contradicted by us, and never proved by our adversaries, and yet boldly affirmed by this babbling discourser. Let him therefore cease to beg this at our hands, and orderly deduce the doctrine of the Romish Mass, & Pope's tyrannical rule, and the rest of their unwritten traditions out of the ancient monuments of the Church.  
Pag. 7. He telleth us, That the Mass and Images were in use in Gregory the 1. his time. And no question, but he understandeth the Mass now used, and the worship of Images by the Church of Rome defended. But these are matters in question, & not impudently to be affirmed, but seriously to be proved.  
Pag. 311. he nameth the Popes of Rome head Bishops of the Catholic Church. But this would rather be sound proved, (and so he should do the Pope a great favour) then dissolutely passed over, and boldly begged. For wise men do but admire his folly, and scorn such loose dealing.  
It were an easy matter to specify his impudency in this kind by infinite particulars. But what need more proofs in matters so evident?   

CHAP. XVI. Arguments of Rob. Parsons his gross ignorance and childish fooleries.  
AMong his followers Robert Parsons, they say, is holden a profound Doctor. But his pitiful fails and errors in mistaking both his authors, and their words and meaning declare the contrary. In the addition following his Epistle he telleth us, how Constantine the great entered into the Empire next after Dioclesian. But Ecclesiastical histories show, that Constantius and Galerius succeeded Diocletian, and that Constantine succeeded his father Constantius. And if he will not believe us; yet let him see, what Baronius saith in his second and third Tome of annal, who putteth three years between Dioclesian and Constantine, and others between them two.  
There also he saith, that Constantine being of a different religion, when he entered, became a Christian by his pious mother Helena. But the Legend of Silvester saith, that Helena was a jew in Religion, and endeavoured to draw her son that way. And Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles. hist. cap. 26. showeth, that from the beginning of his reign 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 history of Maxentius, affirming That he feigned himself a Christian, when he heard of Constantine's coming toward Rome, whereas Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles. hist. cap. 26. saith, he feigned Christianity in the first entrance of his reign. 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 twelve years, and nothing doth Parsons allege, whereby we may understand, that any prophesy was made by any of the future Christianity of Nectarius, Ambrose, and Augustine.  
In his preface speaking of the Church, most ridiculously he compareth it to a mansion house, and the marks thereof to charters, ridiculously I say. For first there is great difference between a mystical body, and a natural body, the Church being changed, albeit men continue, and a mansion house not being moved, although the right be translated to others. Next Charters do rather show, which are the bounds and marks of lands, then may be called the marks of them, and are rather compared to Scriptures, then to the marks assigned by Papists.  
Lastly, this similitude of a mansion house doth overthrow 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 allegeth Alexander Halensis 3. part. q. 79. to prove, That a man hath two lights, whereby he may understand 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 book nor section noted. Doth it not seem therefore, that Parsons, as he hath long since lost the light of faith, so is now become destitute of the light of human reason?  
Pag. 9 he allegeth Tertullian de Coena Domini, who never wrote any book De Coena Domini. It may be, he mistook Tertullian for Cyprian.  
Pag. 14. He saith Peter and Paul were put to death the 14. and last year of Nero. But Baronius and divers learned men say, they died in the 13. year of his reign. Others deny, that they died both in one year.  
Pag. 43. He citeth an Epistle of Basill Admetus 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 years at the least, before Innocentius came to be Bishop there, as Canisius in his Chronology, and Baronius in his Annals, to go nofurther, might have taught him.  
Pag. 54. He allegeth Eusebius lib. 7. hist. c. 29. where there are but 26. chapters of that book in Christophersons version. And pag. 55. he mentioneth two books of S. Augustine ad quaest. januarij, which are more than he ever saw, or we can find in the works of S. Augustine. Percase he meant S. Augustine's 118. Epistle ad januar. But there is no mention made of such mysteries concerning immovable or movable feasts, as our dreaming adversary fancieth.  
Pag. 67. He allegeth Theodoret lib. 6. c. 9 whereas his history containeth only five books.  
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 prove the Pope, the Mass, Transubstantiation, and the use of Images Via negativa. Which passeth the reach of common foolery. For who ever heard of affirmative propositions proved by negatives? Or who is so sottish to take impudent denials for proofs?  
Pag. 106. Where S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptis. contr. Donatist. c. 6. speaketh of the custom of not rebaptizing Christians once baptised by Heretics, our ignorant adversary supposeth, he talketh of the custom of baptizing of infants.  
Pag. 111. He allegeth the ninth book of S. Ambrose De Sacramentis, and supposeth these words: Non valebit Sermo Christi, etc. to be found in the fourth, fifth, and ninth book De Sacramentis, and these words, Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere, quod non erat, etc. to be in the same books. Whereas these words are taken out of the book De iis qui initiantur, etc. and the former are only found in one book 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 conventicle of Trent, the Master of sentences, and Thomas of Aquine have taught it. I would therefore pray all moderate men attentively to consider this fellows either madness, or ignorance. We do by arguments out of Scriptures and Fathers refute the impious doctrine of the conventicle of Trent, Lombard, and Aquinas. And yet he thinketh it sufficient by the testimony of his own fellows, most partially deposing in their own cause, to refute our arguments grounded upon Scriptures, Fathers, and other authentical witnesses.  
Pag. 120. He saith, Popish auricular confession is in itself repugnant to man's sensual nature. As if it were not as natural to confess a truth, as to deny it. This we find, that nothing is more beneficial to Massepriests, or more pleasing to man, then to have absolution after confession. And by this engine the Pope doth work many wonders, to maintain his state.  
Pag. 123. He signifieth, that Irenaeus lib. 5. advers. haeres. speaketh for the supremacy of the Pope: whereas the Pope is not once mentioned in that place, unless it be, where he foretelleth, that Antichrist tyrannically shall take upon 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 allege to Papists the opinions of Bellarmine, Baronius, Suarez, Stapleton, or other Popish proctor's, they think themselves not tied to their particular doctrines. Again, he imagineth, because the Magdeburgians mislike some of the Fathers in some things, that therefore we mislike them. But neither do we in all things hold with the Magd. nor do they condemn the Fathers, that in some singular points dissentfrom them.  
Pag. 146. A Treatise De bono pudicitiae, and a Sermon De nativitate Christi is alleged under the name of Cyprian. And yet it is mere simplicity, to suppose them to be Cyprians.  
Pag. 165. For the title De Regularibus. In sexto, he allegeth De Reg. juris lib. 6. mistaking chalk for cheese. And for the 25. Session of the conventicle of Trent he citeth 28. whereas there are not so many in all.  
Pag. 181. He allegeth an Oration of Chrysostome Contra gentes with this title, Quòd unus 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 concern him, it appeareth he died quietly in his bed, and that his religion was not discovered, but by his testament after his death.  
Pag. 268. he mentioneth the Bishop of Cardiff: whereas every man knoweth, that there is no such Bishop in England. The records of the story might also direct his judgement in this matter, but that he useth to look upon no records.  
Pag. 269. He nameth a certain sect of Heretics, Massilians, as if they of Massilia were Heretics. But he should say, if he were not grossly ignorant, Messalians.  
Pag. 282. Hierome is cited Dial. ult. contr. Lucifer. Whereas it is apparent, that he wrote only one Dialogue against the Luciferians. He is also alleged for proof of succession of Bishops, albeit he speak only of the foundation and succession of the Church.  
Pag. 387. He taxeth M. Foxes words against Pope joan, as blasphemous. Yet it is very absurd, to account all to be blasphemy, that is uttered against the Pope.  
Pag. 444. and 445. in a matter of controversy concerning Innocent the third, he produceth Blondus and Genebrard, two poor parasites of the Pope, to speak in his cause. Likewise he allegeth Platina and Sabellicus, as witnesses for Hildebrand. For him also he quoteth Sigebert and Aventine that speak against him, and an Epistle of Anselm, that is not extant. But what is more absurd and foolish, then to use the testimony either of hired parasites, or of such, as speaks against the purpose of him that useth them, or of records no where extant?  
But what should we need to seek for more arguments of Parson's ignorance and foolery, when his whole discourse is nothing but a pack of errors and fooleries?   

CHAP. XVII. A note of certain speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous, in respect of his duty to his Prince, disloyal.  
IF a man would respect terms; he might percase sometimes esteem Rob. Parsons to be a man not altogether exorbitant from Religion and loyalty. But if we look into the whole course of his writing, we shall hardly find in so final a volume more aguments of impiety and disloyalty. In his Epistle Dedicatory he applieth these words of the Evangelist, Exurgens, imperavit 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 credibility for Christian Religion, and naming the sayings of Prophets, miracles, and testimony of eye witnesses, he saith, that neither they, nor such like are so evident, as philosophical demonstrations. As if philosophical arguments were more clear and evident, than the lightsome word of God, or God's miracles, or else, as if every one were better able to understand philosophical arguments, known only by the light of natural reason, than the truth of Scriptures and Religion proved by the light of God's holy Spirit, most certain miracles, eye witnesses, and divers other arguments.  
There also he affirmeth, that there are like arguments of credibility for the points of Popish Religion now in controversy, as are for the Articles of Christian Religion. But this is sufficient to overthrow all piety and Religion. For what man can believe the articles of the faith, if we had no better ground for them, then for the Popish doctrine of Purgatory, Indulgences, the Pope's Monarchy and infallible judgement, the popish worship of Angels and Saints and Images, the eating of Christ's body by brute beasts eating the Sacrament and other unwritten Popish traditions?  
Pag. 102. he compareth the doctrine of the Trinity, of Christ's two natures and one Person, of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and such like substantial and necessary points of the Christian faith, to the wicked and corrupt doctrine of the Pope's universal authority of the popish Mass, 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 proved, as the other. But what can be devised more impious, then to match the heretical doctrine of schoolmen, either devised by Popes, or conceived by philosophical deductions, with the faith of Christ not only proved by divine Scriptures, but also testified by Fathers, and Catholic Christians of all times?  
Pag. 111. he compareth the word Transubstantiation to the word Trinity, and Consubstantial. Which is as much, as if he should deny the holy Trinity, and the Deity of the Son of God, if he cannot prove his Transubstantiation: a matter that passeth his capacity to prove.  
Pag. 104. he alloweth the donation of Ethelwolph, that gave lands to God, the blessed Virgin, and all the Saints. But what is more impious, then to match creatures with the Creator, & to honour Saints, & the Mirgin Mary as Gods?  
Likewise doth he show himself disloy all to his Prince. In his Epistle Dedicatory speaking of obedience due to Princes, he taketh from them all authority to command in Ecclesiastical causes esteeming that he doth them favour in giving them obedience in all worldly affairs. 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 temporal affairs also, and defend the rebellions of subjects against their Princes.  
In an addition following his Epistle he insulteth over the late Queen hearing of her death, and raileth at her, calling her an old persecutor. The which argueth not only a disloyal affection towards his Prince, but also an inhuman malice against the dead. And this reward Princes reap, that show favour to these Scorpions.  
There also he praiseth the King for his learning, judgement, and zeal. But if he were either good Christian, or true subject, he should have commended his piety, and not have sought to make him subject to the Pope. Again if he had loved the King, he would not have plotted his destruction.  
Pag. 136. he imputeth the burning of Foster, freeze and Tewksbury, three godly Martyrs in King Henry the 8. his days to the King, and yet were the Romish persecutors the causers of their death. Likewise he saith, that others were burned by the King's authority. So all the fault is laid upon the King, although the principal agents in these murders were Romish prelate's.  
Pag. 252. he proveth, that Kings are subject to the Pope by the best reasons he could devise. Can he be thought then loyal 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 succeed their Fathers in their Kingdoms: and Pag. 260. he scorneth Proclamations set forth in his name. Percase it would greatly please him, if all matters were ordered by the Decretals of the Pope. But what need we other arguments, to convince this fellow of disloyalty, when his book of titles is extant, wherein he doth not only oppugn the King's title to the Crown of England, but also giveth both the Pope and people authority over Kings? And if that will not serve, yet when we remember the horrible treason of Percy and his consorts animated, no doubt, by Parsons, we may plainly see that he is a Cardinal traitor.   

CHAP. XVIII. A particular of Parsons his lies, calumniations, and false allegations.  
NOw we enter into a large field. But it shall be sufficient for us, if of many impudent lies, calumniations, and false allegations of authors, we rehearse some part, and give you a taste of his false dealing in the whole. For thereby you may conjecture, 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 converted to Christian Religion long before it came to pass. But if he vouch not his authors, we may boldly avouch, that he hath forged this lie on his own head without truth or authority.  
In the same place he affirmeth, that he knoweth most certainly how the Papists desired his majesties advancement before all others. But he that readeth his book of titles set out under the name of Dolman, and considereth not only the practices of Brook, Watson, and Clerk against the King and the State, but also the matters objected by the Secular priests against the jebusites and their faction concerning this point, and especially the attempt of the gunpowder papists and underminers of the Parliament house, will say, that neither Parsons, nor the popish faction showed themselves very zealous of the King's advancement. And as for the King of Spain's pensioners, it were great simplicity to think that taking his money they promised, or intended his majesties advancement and honour.  
There also he telleth tales of the readiness and forwardness of Papists in advancing his majesties present admission to the Crown. The untruth whereof is not only testified by their own consciences, but also by secret conventicles after the late queens death, and by open practices to the contrary. True it is, that when they saw their own weakness, than they came on forward, but with great sorrow and heaviness of heart appearing in their countenances, and rather to save themselves then to help the King.  
He addeth somewhat of his majesties Mother, and the loyalty of Papists towards her. But his glavering leasing may be refuted, first by the history of Sammier a jebusite, that was the principal motive to bring her into trouble. Next by the practices of the Pope, Frenchmen and Spaniards, that used her name as a pretence for their own ambition. And lastly, by the practices of the Spanish pensioners, and namely of Parsons for other titles.  
In his Preface he saith, that Master Fox (in his book of Acts and Monuments) treateth of the principal pillars of his religion, whereof he maketh some Martyrs, and some Confessors, and distributeth them in a certain Ecclesiastical Calendar, according to the days of every month, wherein their festivals are to be kept. But in these few lines he telleth many untruths. For first Master Foxe never accounted these Martyrs the principal pillars of his religion, founding himself and his religion principally upon the Prophets, and Apostles. Secondly, not Master Fox, but their death and sufferings for Christ's faith made these holy men and women Martyrs and Confessors. Thirdly not M. Fox, 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 martyrdom and sufferings, that are named in the story. Lastly, M. Fox never presumed to appoint festival days for the memorial of these holy men; nor had he presumed so far, could he have done it. But in this point both he and we condemn the arrogancy & presumption of the Pope, that challengeth this power to himself.  
In his argument before his first book he giveth out, that the church of Rome from the times of S. Peter until our days hath always maintained and taught one faith, without change, or alteration of any one substantial article, or point of belief. And this is the main post whereon turneth his windmil-like discourse. Who then doth not see, that his whole discourse is founded upon untruth? That this is a notorious untruth, it appeareth by the great alterations of Religion made partly by the Schoolmen, and partly by the Pope's Decretals, and not least by the decrees of the conventicles of Rome, Lateran, Constance, Florence and Trent, wherein I hope Parsons will not deny, but that substantial points of Religion have been 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 speak 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 joseph of Arimathaea was sent into Britain by S. Peter. A matter of no moment, yet falsely affirmed by him, that careth not what untruth he speak.  
Pag. 40. speaking of jeffrey of Mommouth he affirmeth, that lib. 11. ca 12. there is not one word of not acknowledging the Pope's supremacy. And his reason is, for that Austin was not sent to the Britain's, but to the Saxons, and for that they had their Archbishop's jurisdiction reserved. But his assertion containeth a manifest untruth. For Austin Gregory's Legate required subjection of them, which they could not deny without impugning Gregory's authority. He caused them also most cruelly to be murdered, which he would not have done, unless he had thought his authority to be unjustly resisted. His reason is most ridiculous, and not only false. For neither is there any mention made of any reservation of jurisdiction in Augustine's story, nor do the Pope's Legates spare to usurp all jurisdiction where they can do it. Furthermore it is a vain thing to talk of Gregory's reservation of archiepiscopal jurisdiction in Britain, when before his time no Bishop of Rome was ever heard to appoint either Bishop, or Archbishop in Britain.  
Pag. 57 he saith the Lutherans reject Hester, S. james his epistle, and the Apocalyps from the canon of Scriptures. But their books and acts declare the contrary. They only make a difference betwixt some Chapters of Hester, S. james his Epistle, and the Apocalyps, and other canonical Scriptures, which never have been doubted of, or called in question.  
Pag. 58. he saith, that Luther lib. de Concil. did persuade the Germane Princes to observe Easter day, as an immovable feast. But either he wilfully forgetteth, or slothfully dreameth. For in his book of Counsels he saith only, that it had been better to have left the law of Moses concerning Pase dead and buried. Quanto fecissent consultiùs, saith he, pag. 26. si legem Moysis de Paschali festo reliquissent ibi iacêre mortuam & sepultam? so far was he from making it an immovable feast.  
Pag. 64. he telleth, how Vlfrides' festival is kept by the universal Church upon the 12. day of October. But this leasing is plainly confuted by the Calendars of the Eastern, and African Churches, that never knew any such Saint, and Molanus signifieth, that this Saint's feast was only kept in England. In Anglia, saith he, natalis Vlfridi. But now the reformed Church hath blown away these superstitious festivals, and condemneth the Pope's claim in canonizing his disciples.  
rehearsing the report of Lucius his conversion out of Baronius, pag. 77. he addeth, lieth 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 fountain of religion was at Rome, is both added and false. That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conversion, and Marcus Aurelius his favour, and of Fugatius and Damianus, who as he saith, were Romans, is false, and not to be justified by any good author.  
That Wicleffe and Husse taught, that Kings are no Kings, longer than they rule well, as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a mere calumniation. Their books contain contrary doctrine.  
Pag. 103. he saith, The article of the Trinity, and Christ's two natures were as little, or perhaps less specified in the first two hundred years after Christ, than the popish doctrine of the Pope's authority, of the Mass, and of Images. Matters not only false, but blasphemous. The doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures, and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope, the Mass, 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 read the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary. The same is also to be proved by reason. For what needed they to accuse the Fathers, when neither the writings mentioned are certainly theirs, nor any matter is in those writings contained, that cannot probably be defended, and be wrested out of the hands of our adversaries, that by them would prove 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 proof he referreth us to Srapleton his translation of Bede, and his Fortress of faith. But first the translation is wicked and corrupt, and his fortress of perfidy and heresy is overthrown by D. Fulke of worthy memory. Secondly that which he affirmeth, that we cannot say; that we both say, and prove, and thereof have given divers particulars in our former answer. Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weak fortress, are neither the most material points in controversy betwixt us, nor any way proved by him substantially.  
Pag. 153. he telleth, how, by all means we can devise, we discredit Gregory and Austin. But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great untruths: for we do neither discredit them, nor wrong them, but only report, as we find. Nay we doubt not, but in divers great points of controversy to overthrow our adversaries by the testimony of there two.  
Pag. 192. he saith, that S. German prayed largely to S. Alban. But Bede, upon 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. showeth after this execution done upon the innocent Britan's, how Austin ordained two Bishops, which he could not well do being dead.  
Pag. 227. he telleth, how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to break King Henry the 8. his last will, and that he conspired to put down and destroy all the King's children, and was put to death for heresy and treason. Matters certes most grossly devised, and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretic and traitor. For first King Henry's will, if any such were, was not canceled by him, but by the popish prelate's in Queen mary's 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 break his will, that they might convey the Crown to strangers, but also to burn his body, if they had not been prevented by Queen mary's death. Thirdly that grave Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Queen Mary, albeit many Papists did it, and she to requite his kind dealing, cruelly persecuted him to the death. Lastly he died for defence of true Religion, and not for heresy. And albeit matters of treason were objected to him, yet never came he to his arraignment for them, as no question Rob. Parson's should, if he might be caught.  
Pag. 239. he saith, Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristol, but this is not only false, but also improbable: for the good old man was most meek and peaceable.  
Pag. 241. he writeth, that the Abbots of Glastenbury, whaley, and Reading, and D. Forest, and powel gave their blood for defence of Catholic unity. But the acts of their trial show, that divers of them were executed for plain rebellion, and all for treason. And if any Abbots or jebusites should make the like stirs abroad against the Pope, or the King of Spain, it would avail them but little to pretend Catholic unity. Forest and his fellows under pretence of this Catholic unity, sought to revoke and call back into England the Pope's tyranny.  
Pag. 243. he shameth not to say, that the King gave Bishop Gardiner special 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. Parson's therefore may do well to show, by what commission he lieth thus shamefully.  
Pag. 283. he saith, that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion until Cranmers' time. But hardly shall he prove, that all of them had in them any religion at all. And by no means can he deny, but as the church of Rome changed her faith, so her lovers likewise changed. The faith of the conventicle of Trent none of them ever knew.  
Pag. 287. he allegeth these words, as out of Calvin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 3. We are forced to believe the Church to be invisible, and to be seen only by the eyes of God. But he that hath any eyes at all may see this fellows impudent lying. In that place he hath no such words, but rather teacheth contrary. Likewise doth he belie Luther, affirming, that he teacheth the Church to be invisible.  
Pag. 296. and 297. he saith, that we doubt, that the Church is failed, and that Master Fox 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 grossly lie and feign. For neither do we say that the universal Church faileth, or so erreth, that none holdeth the truth, nor doth Master Fox either so teach, or contradict former authentical writers.  
Pag. 308. he telleth us, how the Centuriasts Centur. 3. ca 4. reprehend Cyprian sharply for speaking of offering sacrifice. But he abuséth his reader, and mistaketh the whole matter. For they do not mislike him for speaking of offering sacrifice, but for attributing too much to the priest. In the same place, thinking that he hath found out a lease of priests, Lo here, saith Parsons, three massing priests, and yet is there not one word in that place of the Mass. True it is, that Cyprian speaketh of a sacrifice, but his sacrifice was not the massing popish sacrifice, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving.  
Pag. 310. he saith, that Constantine built 4. goodly Churches within the city of Rome, carried earth to their first foundation, and adorned them with Images: Three lies nowhere found, but in the fabulous legends calculated by Friars and mass-priests under the shadow of a glass of wine. Nay the legends themselves are not so false, as Parsons his discourse of Three Conversions. For they place S. Paul's Church without Rome, whereas he by his cunning masonry hath placed it in Rome.  
Pag. 316. he chargeth us with Symbolizing with the Manicheyes. But if to agree with heretics is to symbolise with them, than doth Parsons symbolise with heretics. We do anathematize both the Manicheyes, and all other heretics.  
Pag. 318. and 319. he telleth divers lies of the Centuriasts, making them to condemn divers Fathers for invocation of Angels: whereas it doth not appear, that either those Fathers which are there mentioned prayed to Angels, or that the Centuriasts do simply condemn them for writing as they did.  
Pag. 354. he saith Charles the great was made Emperor of the West by Leo the third, which is a ridiculous and vainglorious lie. For next to God, his own sword, and the consent of the people of Rome and Italy made him Emperor of that country, the rest of his Empire he had by his own right. As for Leo the third he had nothing to give, but only by certain ceremonies was appointed to declare the emperors titles, and the people's voluntary submission.  
Pag. 373. he giveth out, that the sixth general Council was called by Pope Agatho. But unless he bring proof, it will appear, that he is nothing scrupulous in giving out lies.  
Pag. 378. he saith, the Council of Lateran under Innocent the third was holden an. 1115. But he miscounteth a hundred years, as his own Chroniclers may inform him. He saith also, that all Counsels were holden by order of the Bishop of Rome, and confirmed by him, and none held for lawful without his confirmation. But these are matters merely forged. For first, not the Bishops of Rome, but the Emperors called the first general Counsels. Secondly, albeit the Bishop of Rome should have withstood them, yet should their acts have passed, neither needed these Counsels any confirmation from the Bishop of Rome. Thirdly, divers things passed in the sixth Council of afric, in the Council of Chalcedon, and the sixth Synod maugre the Bishop of Rome, albeit yet a Bishop, and not the head of antichrist's kingdom, as the Pope proved afterward. To conclude, lies are as rife with Parsons, as louse were in Egypt, when they came upon man and beast, as we read Exod. 8.   

CHAP. XIX. Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himself and his cause.  
HE is a simple Fencer, that hurteth himself with his own weapons, and in the common opinion of men they are accounted unwise, that bring forth furniture into the field, that doth better serve the enemy, than themselves. Yet this is the wisdom of Parsons throughout his discourse. The point of his allegations doth commonly serve to pierce himself, and no better allegations need we then those, which he bringeth to overthrow that cause, which he defendeth. In his Epistle Dedicatory he allegeth these words out of the Psalm 118. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam, & non est illis scandalum. But what could be leveled 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 seek not for peace, but with wars and seditions trouble the Christian world. No marvel therefore, if the whole world be scandalised by the Popes, Cardinals, Monks, Friars, and their superstitions, idolatries, barbarous cruelties, perfidious dealing & wickedness.  
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 divina iudicanda defertis, saith that holy Father, and so we may likewise say to the Papists. You bring with you gross minds, and distempered with the pestilent nurture of material images to judge of divine matters. And this is the reason, why they worship Saints, and other creatures, and make gross similitudes of the Trinity and divine persons. Chrysostome speaketh of Christian Religion, and not of the Pope's monarchy, or of the idolatrous popish Mass, or of Purgatory, or Indulgences, or such popish trash.  
Out of the 〈◊〉 of Saint Matthew he citeth Christ's words, foretelling, that false Prophets should arise and say, lo here is Christ, or there is Christ. But this text doth directly prove the mass-priests to be false Prophets and seducers. For one saith, lo here is Christ pointing to this Altar, or that Crucifix; another pointing to another Pixe or Crucifix saith, lo there is Christ. Chrysostome is alleged homil. 43. operis imperfect. in Matth. as speaking against men negligent in trying out the truth of doctrine. Yet will not popish prelate's permit Christians to hear Scriptures publicly read in vulgar tongues, nor do they give liberty to Christians to judge of the false doctrine of mass-priests and Friars. Finally they do not like, that Christians should be too busy in trying out the truth, & in disputing of matters of Religion.  
He telleth us further, that many of our country this day persuade themselves, that either matters of religion pertain not greatly unto 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 Spain they are forbidden to talk of matters of Religion, as things pertaining to Priests and Friars, and doubt not, but that the Pope and his Cardinals together with inferior Prelates have ordered all this business excellently well. And this is the error of all the Pope's puppy followers.  
Ambrose is there alleged to show, that God will be believed on his word. What indignity were it, saith he, lib. 1. de Abraham ca 3. if believing the testimonies of men concerning others, we shall not believe the oracles of God concerning himself? Do not then Papists offer a great indignity to God, that will not believe Scriptures to be Canonical, unless the Pope and Romish Church do tell them so?  
These words john 5. verse 44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh of God alone? And that which is said by Parson's 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 seek for glory one of another, and all for preferment from the Pope and Cardinals. They seek also the honour of Angels and Saints. But neither do they seek for God's glory alone, nor do they desire so much the praise of God, as of men. Further how can they pretend pious affection, and the keys to open the gate to true faith, when by fraud, treachery, violence and bloody massacres of Christians they seek to maintain not the faith, but heresy; 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, showeth himself either impious in placing piety before true faith, or heretical, that with Pelagius supposeth a man may be pious, before faith, by force of free-will.  
Pag. 9 for proof of the sacrifice of the Mass he bringeth a testimony out of Irenaeus, lib. 4. advers. haeres. ca 32. which quite overthroweth the popish sacrifice of the Mass. For there he speaketh of the sacrifice of Christians, and calleth it primitias creaturarum, the first fruits of God's creatures. But the Papists in their Mass suppose, that the Priest offereth not the first fruits of God's creatures, but the very body and blood of Christ.  
Pag. 14. he standeth much upon the testimonies of Gildas, Nicephorus, Theodoret, and Sophronius, which name divers that preached the Gospel in Britain. But all this tendeth to the overthrow of Parsons his discourse, who in that place undertaketh to prove, that S. Peter and not other preachers did first convert the Britan's to the Christian faith.  
Pag. 59 he showeth how Wilfride converted the South-Saxons, which is as far from his purpose, as the North from the South. For in all this dispute he undertaketh to prove, that the Britan's were first converted to the Christian faith by Romans, and not by Frenchmen or Britan's.  
Pag. 67. out of Tertullian he goeth about to prove, that Blastus was condemned as an heretic, for that privily with his observance of Easter he sought to bring in ludaisine. And Pag. 73. he affirmeth, that Constantine did authorize and publish the decrees of the Nicen Council. Both which points directly make against our adversaries. For while they rigorously stand upon the observance of Easter, and offer paschal lambs, they do after a sort renew and call back into use the ceremonies of the jews; and while they ascribe to the Pope all authority to confirm and publish the acts of Counsels, they do abrogate the authority of Christian Princes in favour of Antichrist.  
Pag. 97. he allegeth divers texts and testimonies to prove that temporal Princes are Gods vicar's and substitutes within their realms. But if that be so, than the Pope is the devils substitute, and vicar of hell, that oftentimes goeth about to remove God's substitutes from their government, and to kill them.  
Pag. 106. S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism. c. 24. is produced as a witness, to prove, that what the universal Church doth hold, and ever hath held, and was not instituted by Counsels, hath come from the Apostles. But this witness overthrowed the whole cause of popery, if he may be credited. For neither the doctrine of the Pope's universal monarchy in the visible Church and in Purgatory, nor of the popish sacrifice in honour of Saints and Angels, and for the benefit of quick and dead, nor of the worship of images, nor the rest of the unwritten traditions of the Romish Church have been always held by the universal 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 Council of Nice; and the doctrine of transubstantiation and auricular confession in the Council of Lateran under Innocent the third; the carnal real presence in a Council at Rome under Nicholas the 2. and other popish heresies in the Counsels of Constance, Florence, and Trent. Are they not then ashamed to call their traditions Apostolical?  
Pag. 145. he allegeth an Epistle of Ignatius ad Heronem, where he saith, Virgins custodi tanquam sacramenta Christi. But this overthroweth the practice of the Romish Church, which is nothing curious in keeping of these Sacraments, nor so watchful in looking to them, but that they are often gotten with child by the mass-priests, Monks and Friars. Furthermore this showeth, that there are more Sacraments than 7. which no Papist dare affirm, unless he will incur the thundering curse of the connenticle of Trent.  
Pag. 159. he rehearseth an Epistle of Gregory condemning them that worship stocks or stones. Do we then think that either Gregory or Austin did convert the English to the worship of these things? He doth also wickedly translate Gregory's Epistle, leaving out these words, à Germaniarum Episcopis, which contain a contradiction to the words of Bede, who saith, that Austin was ordered by a French Bishop, and not a Germane Bishop.  
Pag. 229. he allegeth these words of Augustine epist. 165. in illum ordinem Episcoporum etc. that is, If any traitor should have crept into that order of Roman Bishops, it should not have prejudiced the Church of God, or innocent Christians. But he cutteth off the midst of the sentence, and some words in the latter end, lest that holy Father's opinion might appear too clearly. And yet it appeareth thereby sufficiently, that Roman Bishops may be false traitors, and that the succession of the Pope's is no mark of the Church, seeing Augustine doth say, the Church may stand, notwithstanding their falsehood and treachery.  
Pag. 280. he citeth the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. advers. haeres. c. 4. commending Succession with the gift of truth. What is then the bare succession of Popes, or Turks without truth?  
Pag. 295. he confesseth, That the truth of this question, whether this or that be the true Church, is a matter of understanding. Out of this grant therefore we conclude, that we cannot discern with our eyes, which is the true Church, nor know it by the succession of Popes, or such like sensible marks.  
Pag. 307. He produceth the example of S. Laurence dispensing the cup of Christ's blood from the altar. Do not the mass-priests therefore shame to drink all alone, and to refuse to dispense the cup from the Lords table?  
Pag. 360. He allegeth divers 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 us, how the Gospel was laid in the midst of Bishops sitting in Council. But this showeth, that matters there ought to be decided by the word of God, and not by the Pope's Decretals.  
Finally, he showeth pag. 475. out of S. Augustine's 48. Epistle ad Vincentium, that the Church is sometime shadowed and obscured: which plainly overthroweth the Popish doctrine concerning the illustrious and perpetual visibility of the Church of Christ.  
If then any simple Papist heretofore have been seduced by this fabulous discourse of Rob. Parsons, to believe, that the inhabitants of this land have been thrice converted to that faith, which now is professed at Rome, or to give credit to the heretical doctrine of the Romanists; let him reform his opinion, and beware how he admit such trifling books, wherein Scriptures are so wickedly abused, and Fathers so corruptly alleged, and lies so commonly interlaced. And if he love Rob. Parsons; let him admonish him hereafter, to have more care what he writeth, and to desist from wresting and abusing Scriptures, from falsisying and corrupting the testimony of Fathers, from Thrasonical bragging, and yet beggarly craving matters in controversy, from his impious speeches against God, and disloyal terms against his Prince, and finally from lying, slandering and impertinent babbling. Otherwise as his faults and errors appear many and grievous: so it will manifestly appear, that it is God's judgement, that so wicked a cause should be defended so weakly, lewdly, and wickedly. God give him grace to repent him of his inveterate malice against true Christians, and confirm all Christians in the truth, that they give no ear to the fabulous tales, and leasings of such lewd, wicked, and malicious companions.   
FINIS.   

The Contents of the Discourse precedent.  
THe preface containeth a brief examination of Robert Parsons his Epistle Dedicatory, of the addition to it, and of his preface.  
The 1. Chapter disputeth this question: Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospel in Britain, or no.  
The 2. Chapter showeth, what we are to think of the pretended Conversion of Lucius King of Britain, and of the Britain's to Christian Religion by Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and his Agents.  
The 3. Chapter resolveth us of Austin the Monks coming into England, and of his preaching and proceeding here.  
In the 4. Chapter is proved, that the modern doctrine of the Church of Rome, which the Church of England rejecteth, was either oppugned by S. Peter, Eleutherius, Gregory, and Austin, or at the least unknown unto them.  
The 5. Chapter containeth a brief answer to Parsons his fond and frivolous discourse, wherein desperately he undertaketh to prove, that the faith now professed in Rome, is the same and no other, than was taught by Eleutherius, and Gregory, in time past.  
The 6. Chapter discovereth the vanity and foolery os Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conversions of England.  
The 7. Chapter bringeth evident demonstrations, that the late Popes of Rome have deserved nothing of England, or the English nation, but hatred and detestation.  
The 8. Chapter containeth proofs concluding, that the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius, but rather of Pope joan.  
The 9 Chapter showeth, that the succession of Romish Popes is neither mark of the Church, nor mean of trial of the truth.  
The 10. Chapter proveth the Church of England to be the true Church of God, and to hold the Apostolic and true Catholic faith.  
The 11. Chapter refuteth Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise, wherein he pretendeth to seek for the original and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward.  
The 12. Chapter showeth, that the modern Church of Papists was not visible in the world for more than a thousand years after Christ, and never was fully settled, nor plainly visible in England.  
Chap. 13. therein is declared how little conscience Parsons maketh, to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures.  
The 14. Chapter containeth a catalogue of divers falsifications, false allegations, and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church, and other authors, committed by Parsons.  
The 15. Chapter exhibiteth certain examples of Parsons his Thrasonical brags, and beggarly craving of matters in question.  
The 16. Chapter allegeth arguments of Parsons his gross ignorance, and childish fooleries.  
The 17. Chapter containeth a Table of certain speeches of Parsons, in respect of God, blasphemous, in respect of his duty to his Prince, disloyal.  
The 18. Chapter containeth a Table of Parsons his lies, calumniations, and false allegations.  
The 19 Chapter showeth, how Parsons his texts and allegations, for the most part, make against himself, and his cause.  
FINIS.