The subuersion of Robert Parsons his confused and worthlesse worke, entituled, A treatise of three conuersions of England from paganisme to Christian religion

CHAP. V. A briefe answere to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse, wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to prooue, that the faith now professed in Rome vnder Clement the 8. is the same, and no other, then was taught by Eleuthe∣rius and Gregory in time past.

VNto our argumēts Rob. Parsons in his treatise of three Conuersions maketh no answere. And yet he could not be ignorant, that these and many more arguments are

brought against his cause. Nay it appeareth, that it will be as easy a matter for him to turne himselfe into a woodcock, as to maintaine his booke of Three Turnings. Only, least he should séeme silent, he setteth on a brasen face, and Pag. 8. desperatly promiseth to proue, that the faith of Rome is, and was all one vnder Eleutherius, Gregory, and Clement the 8. lately raigning. He should haue added S. Peter also, if he would haue mainteined his argument of three Conuersions. But he knew, that there is too maine a difference betwixt S. Peters catholike epistles, and Clements vncatholike De∣cretals. In the processe also of his discourse concerning the faith of Eleutherius and Gregory, compared to the confession of Clement the 8. he runneth on confusedly and absurdly, turning and winding vp and downe, like a man that hath lost his way, and is caried without direction, he knoweth not whither. In his discourse there are thrée maine faults. First, he doth not iustifie all those points of popery, which are now holden by Clement the 8. at the least, if the Pops beléeue the moderne Romish faith, nor prooue them to haue béene beléeued and taught by Eleutherius and Gregory. Next, he neither proposeth his matters resolutely, nor in proouing them proceedeth orderly. Lastly, he barely toucheth some points in controuersie, but neither dare handle the princi∣pall matters taught by the Romanists, nor can prooue that which he promiseth. And this God willing we shall demon∣strate out of the mans owne words, folowing as well as we can the file and order of his disordred discourse.

Pag. 7. He threapeth kindnesse vpon vs, and would beare vs in hand, that we dare not deny, but that both Masse and Images were in vse in Gregories time in the Romane Church and faith, and so brought into England by Augustine. But first he speaketh strangely, where he sayth, Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane faith. For Masse is song or sayd at the Altar, and Images are painted, or made in bosse vpon walles, or other places. But faith is properly in the heart, though declared with the mouth, and consisteth neither in Imagery, nor Massing foolery, but in receiuing the sauing

word of God. Secondly, if by the vse of the Masse and Ima∣ges he vnderstand the moderne doctrine and practise of the Romish Church concerning these two points, he wrongeth vs, and abuseth his reader, saying we dare not deny, that the Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane church in Gre∣ries time, and so brought into England by Augustine. For by the old Romish ordinall it appeareth, that Gregories Masse was most vnlike the moderne Masse of the Romanists. That forme ouerthroweth priuate Masses, halfe Communions, prayers for the dead, the carnall reall presence, transubstan∣tiation, the reall propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead, and the whole forme and frame of the moderne Romish Ca∣non and Masse. Gregory also, as we haue declared, absolute∣ly condemned the worship of Images, and neuer acknow∣ledged, that the Crosse or Crucifixe was to be worshipped with Latria. Finally, albeit Augustine named Masses, and had a crosse and an image; yet it appeareth not, that his Masse was like the moderne Masse, or that he worshipped the crosse or the image, or planted them in the Church. Bede mentioneth no such matter, where he mentioneth them. If by Masse he meane a dimission of the people, and by the vse of images vnderstandeth an historicall vse of them, he relée∣ueth his cause nothing. For neither do we contend about words, nor deny all historicall vse of images. To help the matter a little he sayth, that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in procession with a crosse, and image of our Sauiour in a banner. But Beda conuinceth him oflying, who sayth a he brought Christes image in a table. Veniebant sayth he, crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam, & imaginem Domini Saluatoris in tabula depictam.

For proofe, that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth vs Pa. 8. & 9. to the Magdebur∣gians, Cent. 2. & cap. 4. de doctr. But his proofe is weake, and witlesse. For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius, or Clement. Secondly albeit we should graunt, that Eleutherius consented with all those that liued in that age in their erroneous or incommodious spéeches

(which notwithstanding we haue no reason to beléeue) yet can it not thereby be prooued, that he consented with Cle∣ment the 8. or Clement with him. For albeit we reade in Ignatius this phrase Offerre, and Sacrificium immolare, and like phrases in Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tercullian, and Martialis, who mentioneth also Altars; yet it foloweth not, that the Romish sacrifice of Christs body and bloud for quick and dead, or the moderne Canon of y^e Masse, or Transubstantiation, and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were knowne to these ancient Fathers. For all those termes, which the Fa∣thers vsed being taken and meant spiritually, and being vn∣derstood of spirituall sacrifices, make nothing either against vs, or for our aduersaries Masses, or massing formes. Third∣ly, although the Magdeburgians in these times complaine of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men, which Parsons grossely interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine: yet they taxe but few men, and say not, that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists. Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yéeld, let them yeeld for themselues: we do not in all points take ourselues bound to allow their sayings, nor finde any such inconuenience in these termes, as the Fathers vnderstood them, as the Mag∣deburgians pretend. Finally, Rob. Parsons must speake of more then one point of consent, or else he will shew himselfe vnwise to parallele Clement the 8. with his triple Crowne to the humble martyr of Christ Eleutherius. This testimony therefore out of the Magdeburgians maketh little for his purpose. But therein he doth properly bewray his owne folly. For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen. Dom. where he neuer wrote any such booke; and did not vnderstand the Magde∣burgians, who vse these words, Tertullianus de coena loquens in lib. de culiu foeminar. Lastly the words, inclinatio Doctrinae, he translateth the falling away of Christian doctrine: as if euery thing, that did decline, did fall away; or else, as if doctrine might be sayd properly to fall away, and not rather men to decline from the sinceritie of doctrine.

Afterward, Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth vs, how Cyprian

epist. 45. glorieth, in that his Church of Carthage in Africa, and all other the Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia, had receiued their first institution of christian faith from Rome, as from their mother, and that he calleth the Roman Church matricem ceterarum omnium. And that Tertullian saith, that the authority of his church came from Rome. And lastly, that Au∣gustine in Psal. contr. partē Donati, had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholike, then to say, that they were daughters & childrē of the church of Rome. But first, this maketh nothing for his purpose, which should proue, that y^e doctrine of the moderne church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome. Secondly most grossely doth he either mistake, or belye these Fathers, for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say, that his church of Carthage and all churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia, had re∣ceiued their first institution fió Rome. Nor doth he once men∣tion Rome, but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margent, where it is plaine he speaketh of the generall Catholike Church. Further he doth not say, that Mauritania & Numidia were vnder Carthage: for they are prouinces en∣tire of themselues, and diuided from Carthage, as Caesar Ba∣ronius might haue informed him. All which also is made cleare by y^e words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem agnoscerent, & tenerent. saith he, Sed quo∣niam latiùs fusa est nostra prouincia, habet etiam Numidiam & Mauritaniam cohaerentes. Tertullians words are these, Vnde no∣bis quo{que} authoritas praestò est statuta. That is, from whence we haue testimony at hand: and not as this beetlehead interpre∣teth, from whence the authority of our Church came. S. Augu∣stine in Psalmo contr. part. Donati neither saith, that Hippo and other Churches were the daughters of Rome, nor mentio∣neth Hippo. It appeareth therefore, that Rob. Parsons had ouerwatched himselfe when he wrote these fooleries.

Pag. 101. he goeth about to refell our argument, conclu∣ding, that there was not in Rome the same faith in the dayes of Eleutherius that is now, because then there was no men∣tion or knowledge either of the vniuersall authority of the

bishop of Rome, or of the name or vse of Masses, or of sacrifice propitiatory for quick or dead, or of Transubstantiation, or worship of Images. But first he marreth our argument by adding and detracting. To the bishop of Rome he adioyneth the Church, leaueth out our exception against the doctrine of the Masse, and worship of Images, and putteth downe only the name and vse of masses, and vse of images in churches. But to forbeare to censure him for his iugling, let vs sée, what ex∣ception he maketh to our argument. If, saith he, this conse∣quence should be admitted, then would it follow, that the name and doctrine of the blessed Trinity, the two distinct na∣tures and one person in Christ, his two distinct wils, the virgini∣ty of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth, the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Sonne, as from the Father, should not be admitted. But the fellow sheweth himselfe not only impudent, but also most blasphemous, to compare such false, wicked, & impious doctrines, as Papists now maintaine, to the principall and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity, and Christs two natures, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost. For who kneweth not, that these articles are plainly proued out of Scriptures, and declared in Councels, & receiued by most ancient Fathers? but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse for quick & dead, of the Monarchy and vniuersall authority of the Pope, of Transubstantiation, and popish worship of Images, is not only not to be prooued, but also to be disproued by holy scrip∣tures. The same is also contrary both to decrées of Coun∣cels, and authority of Fathers, as hath bene declared in di∣uers treatises of those seuerall arguments. We only will al∣ledge some few. First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution, that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed & receiued, and not to be offe∣red vp for quick and dead. Next to holy Scriptures, and Fa∣thers, that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased, that y^e body of Christ was once only to be offered, that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall. Finally if Christes

body be not really present, nor the bread & wine transubstan∣tiated into his body and bloud, then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse, that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick & dead. But that is proued by the words of the in∣stitution, bread and wine being named, after consecration, by y^e testimony of Fathers that expound these words, hoc est corpus meum, figuratiuely, by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified, which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne, and by diuers other arguments.

For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority, there is no one word in scripture, nay scriptures shew, that all the Apostles were called, and authorized alike; and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl. praelat. Furthermore, the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority, for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory, as I haue shewed, condemned the title of v∣niuersall bishop as Antichristian; neither can it be shewed, that y^e Pope either made lawes, or ordeined bishops, or iud∣ged all causes throughout the whole church, vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues.

Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body, and supposeth it neither to be visible, nor pal∣pable, repugneth to the words of institution, and common cōsent of Fathers, that declare bread & wine to remain after consecration, taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified, and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches.

The worship of images is contrary to the law of God, Exod. 20. to y^e decrées of Councels, to y^e doctrine of Fathers, and abolisheth all true religion. God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes, to the intent to wor∣ship it, or to bow downe to it. The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls. The 2. Councel of Nice, though it allow some worship done to images, yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image. The Councel of Franc∣fort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images. Epiphanius tore downe a

vaile, that had an image of Christ, or some Saint painted on it. Gregory, as before I haue shewed, vtterly condemned the worship of Images. Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin. c. 19. saith plainely, There is no religion, where there is an image. Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a com∣parison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith, and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth.

Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the mo∣derne Romish faith, Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe, the one as he calleth it, negatiue, and the other affirma∣tiue; and by them he vanteth, that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man. But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs, against himselfe he bringeth an eui∣dent proofe of his owne folly. For what can be supposed more absurd, then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue, by a negatiue, or contraxiwise? and yet such is Parsons his wisdome, that he offereth vs this abuse. Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe, where he talketh of negatiue proofes. For albeit he standeth vpon his denial, and resolueth to put vs to proue, yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly, that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argu∣ment, and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe. His mea∣ning is, that we are not able to shew, that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time & after, or that they came into the church afterward. And therefore he inde∣noureth to cōclude vpon y^e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt. ca. 24. that seeing y^e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y^e popes Monarchy, the Romish masse, Tran∣substantiation, and the worship of Images, the same is de∣liuered by authority of the Aposties. But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church. Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church, and that long after Eleutherius his time. The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches be∣gan to enter by a graunt of Phocas. The popes tyranny by

vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added, we may sée in Walafridus Strabo, Platina, Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill. Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit. Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited, vntill the late conuenticle of Trent, nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church. For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y^e Popes authority, nor beléeueth transubstantiation, or receiueth the Popes masse, or popish purgatory, or his doctrine of Images. Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuen∣ticle of Trent, and the Emperour protested against y^e Synod.

Little therefore doth Augustine help, but to confound Par∣sons his cause, albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines, whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne, but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church.

But sayth Parsons, Pag. 111. although the word Transub∣stantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran, as these words Consubstantiall, Trinity, and the like in the first Coun∣cell of Nice, yet the substance of the article (viz. concerning transubstantiation) was held from the beginning. And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose, lib. 4. 5. & 9. de Sacramentis, and out of these words, Non valebit sermo Christi, vt species mutet elementorum? And againe, Sermo Christi, qui potuit de nihilo facere, quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erat? But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature, to compare the mystery of the holy Tri∣nity, and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Fa∣ther, both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures, with the ar∣ticle of transubstantiation, that is so repugnāt to Scriptures, faith, authority, and common sence. Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist, & in the times of darkenes. Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice, that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the ar∣ticle of the Trinity. Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impu∣dently,

where he saith, the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning. For I haue shewed before, that the Master of Sentences knew it not. And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose. These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose, make nothing for Parsons. For he will not deny, but that species, or formes remaine, where as Ambrose saith they are changed. Againe, Ambrose will not haue any o∣ther change in the elements, then is wrought in our rege∣neration, or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets, 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ, as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur. ca. 9. and de Sacrament. lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such, that the things still remaine. Vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commu∣tētur. The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread. Tu, sayth he, quia accipis panem, diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento. Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignorāce or negligence, that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sa∣cramentis, where he wrote but sixe, if those sixe bookes at all were his, and alledgeth these two places, as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis, that are not there to be found, but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose, where he sayth, he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into ano∣ther, for he doth neither talke of the change of natures, of e∣lements, nor substances.

To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy, of the wor∣ship of images, and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene al∣wayes beléeued in the Church, he alledgeth neither autho∣rity, nor reason, but only saith, a that although we appoint certaine times when these things began, yet we dare not stand to any certaine time, nor can alledge the certaine authors of them. But as in his owne proofes, so in reporting our asser∣tions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie. For we do not say, as he reporteth, that the Pope challenged this su∣premacy, which now in some countries he possesseth, vnder Pope Gregory, and Phocas the Emperour, but that they be∣gan to encroch by litle and litle, and that Boniface the 3. ob∣teined

of Phocas, that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches, as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest, we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud, and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his succes∣sors. The authors of the Masse, and of the worship of Ima∣ges both entring by degrées, we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories, and stand to our allegation so firme∣ly, that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence. That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied, we graunt, & therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers: and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this ex∣ception, or his negatiue proofe, as he ridiculously calleth it.

His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better. First, he a citeth the names of Irenaeus, Iustine Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy, fréewill, merit of works, the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse. But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake, lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing, or else to speake a∣gainst the producents cause. Only he could not, as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres. ca. 3. beginning, Maximae & antiquissimae ecclesiae &c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence, which sheweth, that y^e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded, then that of the church of Rome, and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only, not as head, but for auoiding tediousnes. Quoniam valde longum est, saith he, in hoc tali volu∣mine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae & anti∣quissimae &c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words, ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam, in this sort, for that vnto this church, in respect of her more mighty principality, it is necessary, that all churches must agree, & haue accesse. Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is, that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes & dignity, and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it. Thirdly he collecteth very

absurdly, y^t because Christians did respect y^e church of Rome much, while it kept the faith sincere, now also all churches are to respect it, being departed frō the faith, & tyrānizing o∣uer all others. For why should we rather respect that church, then the church of Ephesus & Smyrna, whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected, then that of Rome? Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words, saying, lo here the principality of that church cōfirmed. For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood, then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome, or vnderstood by principality.

Next he vrgeth the cōfession of y^e Magdeburgiās against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say, nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue, that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome. True it is, that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y^e title of Incom∣modious opinions, and stubble of some Doctors, they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur. 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter, and say∣ing, that the Church is built vpon him. Likewise they ta•••• Cyprian for some spéeches. But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude, that either Cyprian, or Tertullian, or Irenaeus, or Ig∣natius doth hold & maintaine the bishop of Romes authority, which now he challengeth. Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian. No way, certes, he can be thought to vnderstand him, that nameth Salonius for Sidonius, and supposeth Maxi∣mus, Vrbanus, and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers, and to haue affirmed, that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church, wheras these three re∣turning from the side of schismatikes, that in euery church had erected a bishop of their own faction, began now to hold, y^t in euery seuerall church, there ought to be but one bishop. Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well vn∣derstand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist. 8. For indéede he speaketh not of the Romane church, but of the vniuersall church. The like may be sayd of Cyprians booke de simplic. Praelat. Fi∣nally if Parsons vpon the words of Cyprian, or Origen, can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope, he shall well

deserue a Cardinals hat. But in the meane while, he must content himselfe with a garland of Fore tayles for his insi∣gnious fopperie, that by such weake surmises thinketh to proue the faith of Eleutherius & Clement the 8. to be all one.

He should also haue alledged the testimonie of the Magdeburgians, as yeelding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Masse, for transubstantiation, & the worship of images: but therein he faileth. Onely he talketh idlely of certaine frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers, and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of Frée-will, Iustification, Repentance, Good workes, Fasts, Uirginitie, kéeping of Holy dayes, Martyrdome, in∣uocation of Saints, Purgatorie, Traditions, Monasticall life, Reliques, and such like points. But all this is nothing to the purpose. For neither are we bound to performe and make good euery priuate mans singular opinions: nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference be∣twixt themselues and the Fathers: nor do they alwaies ga∣ther their sentences out of the authenticall writings of the Fathers: neither do they meane and comprehend all, as oft as they speake against one or two: nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from vs, that either al the Fathers make against vs, or that all, most, or any do ioyne with the Papists. Ro∣bert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends, to leaue this vaine and roauing discoursing, and scholerlike to conclude somewhat against that religion, which he hath forsaken, and we do professe, and beleeue to be most Catholike, and auncient, and Apostolicall.

For proofe that the religion now professed in Rome is the same, which was brought into England by Austin the Monke, he referreth vs p. 152. to Stapletons Fortresse of faith, as he called it. But he should remember, that the same for∣tresse was taken, and ouerthrowne by M. Doctor Fulke of worthie memorie, and that in such sort, that the builder and author of that foolish fortresse, durst neuer vndertake to re∣paire the ruines thereof. Furthermore, he is to vnderstand,

that Stapletons discourse containeth a briefe recapitulation of certaine ceremonies and abuses in doctrine, which were in practise about the coming in of Augustine into England. But neither were they matters of any importance, nor were they generally receiued, nor were they agreable to the formes now receiued, and vsed in the Church of Rome.

Part. 1. ch. 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gre∣gorie and Austin, and rayling against M. Foxe, M. Bale, and M. Holinshead. And Chap. 9. and 10. endeuoureth to proue, that Austin brought into England no other religion, then that, which the Church professed during the times of Eleu∣therius. But first we haue no speciall quarrell either against Gregorie or Austin. If Parsons will needes vrge vs to speake against the Monke Austin, he shall heare, what he was a∣none. Secondly, these good men M. Foxe, M. Bale, and M. Holinshead, it is no maruell though they be rayled on by such wicked fellowes. Vpright and good men, (as the Wise∣man sheweth vs, Prou. 29.) are an abhomination to the wic∣ked. Thirdly, we do not so much contend about the corrupti∣ons brought in by Austin the Monke, as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust vpon vs. Parsons therfore ought to shew, that now the same religion is professed' in Rome, which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britaine and England, and not so much to prate of the times betwéene Eleutherius and Austin. Howbeit it appea∣reth, that euen in these times superstition and false doctrine began to créepe into some corners of the Church contrarie to that forme, which was receiued from the Apostles, and v∣sed in Eleutherius his times. Some began to talke doubtful∣ly of Purgatorie, others to pray priuatly to Saints. In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised diuers from Apostolicall orders. Of Fréewill and of Workes some began to talke philosophical∣ly, others to aduance mans merits. Churches were built in honour of Saints, and their Reliques worshipped. Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table, and a siluer crosse, and began to chaunt Letanies; which Rob. Parsons,

albeit all the Iebusites in Rome should helpe him with their suffrages, will neuer proue to haue bene knowne or practi∣sed in Eleutherius his time. Pa. 181. he proueth altars in Bri∣taine out of Chrysostome, and afterward altars of stone, and sacrifices, and vowes, and othes made to Saints out of Gildas. He alledgeth also Optatus, and Augustine, for proofe of altars, and y^e Masse. But neither doth the name of Masse, or altars, or sacrifices, or vowes prooue the Romish Masse, altars, sacrifice, vowes, or the Romish doctrine of these points, as at large hath bene declared in my bookes De Mis∣sa, and De Monachis against Bellarmine, nor do we stand vpon names or termes, nor are these the principall points of Romish religion, which we impugne: nor is the testimo∣nie of Gildas authenticall.

Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth vs of a Church built in the honor of Saint Martin, where Austin song, prayed, and said Masses; of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his pray∣er, and application of reliques, of a prayer made to Saint Al∣ban, of honoring Martyrs sepulchers, of Alleluia, and the ob∣seruance of Lent, out of Bede. But therein he spendeth his labour in vaine. For neither were the Masses then said, nor the honor then done to Saints reliques, nor their obseruan∣ces like to those, which the Church of Rome now practiseth. Beside that, Bede speaketh of things past after the manners of his time, and reporteth many things by heare-say. Parsons also to helpe the matter translateth these words of Bede lib. 1. hist. cap. 18. Beatum Albanum Martyrem auctori Deo per ip∣sum gratias petierunt: thus, They went to the sepulcher of S. Alban, prayed to the Saint largely. But there is no such mea∣ning 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 Dubri∣tius was the Legate of the Apostolike sea, and that there were Procession, Organs, and singing in the Church. Out of M. Bale, M. Foxe, Trithemius and others, that before Austins time there were diuers learned men and preachers among

the Britains, whereof some were instructed at Rome, some were sent from Rome, some built Monasteries, some were Monkes. But neither doth that make any thing for proofe, that they either held that religiō, which Eleutherius taught, or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now profes∣seth.

Finally, he affirmeth, that the religion taught by Austin, was catholike and confirmed by miracles, and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times. But that which is the point in controuersie, viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran, Con∣stance, Florence, Trent, and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time, is the same, that was preached by Austin the Monke, the wise disputer doth scarce mention, and no way proueth. Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first, that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents, and by Au∣stin, we are to renounce all those heresies, false doctrines, and abuses, which since the time of Austin haue bene brought in∣to the Church. Secondly, that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence, nor transubstantiation, nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead, nor halfe Communions, nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie, nor his Indulgences, nor the worship of Images, nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes, nor the rest of the Ro∣mish doctrine by vs refused, to haue bene preached by those, that first planted Christian religion in this countrie.

Notes

• a

  Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26.
• a

  Pag. 113.
• a

  Pag. 123.