THE SVBVERSION OF ROBERT PARSONS His confused and worthlesse worke , ENTITVLED , A treatise of three Conuersions of England from Paganisme to Christian Religion .

1. Tim. 1.

Conuersi sunt in vaniloquium .

They are turned vnto vaine iangling .

THE shew of antiquity in matters of religion being so plausible to the multitude , and so sorcible to perswade the simple ; I maruell not , my good Lord , if our aduersaries the Papists , who shew themselues also aduerse to truth , do both commonly and willingly entitle their erroneous doctrines concerning the worship of Saints and Images , the Popes indulgences , Purgatory , and all their traditions and trash , though neuer so new , the Old Religion . Your Lordship also well knoweth , what paines Parsons the Iebusite hath taken in his bookes of Three Conuersions , to prooue , that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted to that religion , which is now professed and taught at Rome , not doubting , but if he can prooue it so ancient , that the same will soone be admitted as true , as being deriued from the Apostles , and most ancient and sincere Bishops of Rome .

Hauing therefore commiseration of the ignorance of seduced Papists , and willing to consirme good Christians in the truth , and to arme the weake against the assaults of such seducers , I haue vndertaken to examine his whole discourse concerning the three supposed conuersions of England , wherein Parsons indeuoureth to prooue the antiquitie of Popish religion within this Iland , seeking from the true religion professed here to bring vs back to the haeresies and captiuitie of Rome , more odious farre then that of Babylon . And this I vndertake not because he deserueth to receiue any long or curious answer , but rather to shew . his consorts , that he bringeth nothing , which cannot easily be answered .

Some do esteeme the booke very much in regard of the strangenesse and noueltie , promising not only a narration of the planting of religion in England by Austin the Monke , but also a confirmation of the history of King Lucius , and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome , and new tidings of a new conuersion of Brittaine wrought by S. Peter himselfe : matters of which many will be glad to heare . But he that diligently peruseth what he hath written , shall soone lose all his longing . For whether we consider the subiect of this discourse , or the manner of handling the same , there is nothing that can any way satisfie the reader . The proofes stand vpon coniectures . The authors stile is harsh and vneuen . His rehearsals thick and tedious . His purpose fond & foolish . Three things he striueth to prooue . First , that this land was thrise conuerted to religion by preachers sent from Rome , viz. by S. Peter , Eleutherius , and Austin . Secondly that the same was conuerted to no other religion then that , which is now preached and mainteined at Rome . And thirdly that therefore we are now to learne religion , and to receiue direction and gouernment from thence . But the first is very euill performed . For of the first conuersion by S. Peter he is scarce able to bring any coniecture . The second seemeth fabulous . The third concerneth not the whole land , but only a few Saxons . In the second he hath altogether failed , not being able to prooue either his Tridentine , or Decretaline doctrine concerning the Pope , the Masse , the seauen Sacraments , the worship of saints and idols , and such like matters in question out of the histories of those ti●●s . In the third point he trauaileth in vaine . For why should England be more subiect to Rome for receiuing the Christian faith from thence , then Rome to Hierusalem , from whence the sound of the Gospell went into all lands ? In the second part of his three Conuersions he seemeth to make great inquirie for our Church and religion in former times . But when he cannot deny , but we hold all the Christian faith either taught expressely by the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church , or explaned in the sixe generall Councels ; and do only condemne the corruptions of later time brought in by the Decretals and Schoolemens frapling disputes ; he sheweth himselfe a blinde searcher , that can neither see , nor finde our faith and Church before these late dayes . Physitions say , that melancholike men are much subiect to dreames . Melancholici saith one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . It seemeth therefore , that Parsons writing this booke of three Conuersions , wherin so many dreames and fancies are conteined , did ouerflow with melancholy . But writing the second part of his treatise it seemeth , that he was in a dead sleepe , and had his senses so bound , that he could neither feele , nor see any thing . In time past , they say , he was able to write well : but now his bookes are like the coynes , of which one in Plautus talketh . The last are the worst .

And this I doubt not to make to appeare in this my answere , the which I make bold to present to your Lordship , as a testimoniall of my thankefulnesse , and a pledge of my affection & loue . And the rather , for that , as your Lordship hath bene a principall helper to free me of my troubles , so you may first taste of the fruite of my trauailes . It is more then a yeare since I first framed this treatise , but could not publish it by reason of my other occasions and disturbances . But now that your bountifull fauours haue giuen me some time of breathing , I thought I could not better employ my life and breath , then in the common defence of the truth . Vouchsafe therefore , my good Lord , to accept of this small present , and to take both the gift and giuer into your protection . And so I shall be more free to do God seruice , and more willing to employ my selfe for his Church , and alwayes rest

But herein the poore fellow faileth most grossely . Nay where he needed not , blindly he plungeth himselfe into diuers difficulties , offering to prooue , that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted vnto Christian religion by S. Peter , Eleutherius , and the Monke Austin : matters farre beyond the reach of his abilitie , and impertinent . For neither doth he prooue , that the Britaines were thrise by them conuerted , nor would it aduantage his cause being prooued , seeing the decretaline and wicked doctrine of Popes , which all true Christians refuse , is of a late and different note from that faith , which those three taught and professed , and which was of ancient time planted in this Iland .

The which , that it may euidently appeare , I haue for thy better satisfaction thought good to examine this whole treatise of three Conuersions , in volume big , in value small , in discourse idle , in proofes weake and simple , and altogether vnworthy any long answere , were it not that some men suppose , that he hath sayd somewhat , where God wot his whole treatise is nothing but vaine talking , and tedious discoursing to no purpose . Eadem atque eadem saepe dicit sayth Augustine epist. 86. of such an idle writer , aliud non inueniendo quod dicat , nisi quod inaniter , & ad rem non pertinens dicit . But with better reason may this be sayd of this pratling Iebusite , which repeating the same things often , yet findeth nothing to serue his purpose , but that which ouerthroweth the purpose of the author .

In his Epistle Dedicatory he giueth the title of Catholikes to English Masse-priests and their consorts . But that is the point in question . He calleth them also the worthy children of the first professors of the Christian faith in this land . But the testimonie of a bastard shall neuer make bastard professors true Christians . Further it is not like , but his prouision will faile him before the end of his iourney , that beginneth so impudently to beg at his first setting forth , and so presumptuously to take for granted matters in controuersie . Finally , vnder the name of the Christian catholike faith , he goeth about to commend the corruptions and trash of the Romish church , as the Macedonian heretikes did their hereticall poyson . Venenum melle illitum , nempe catholico nomine superinducto propinabatur sayth Athanasius ad Serap .

He sheweth reasons of his dedication , but all false . For neither shall he euer prooue , that Papists professe the Christian catholike faith first planted in England , nor deriue their pedegree from the first Christian Britains , or Saxons . His best reason is either forgotten or ouerslipped , viz. that such patcheries are most properly due to such patrons .

Against true Christians he inueigheth with open mouth , as if they were heretikes , and intruders on the right of the catholike church . But that is a common practise of men of his sort , to fall to rayling and lying , when by truth they cannot stand . Hierome in his 2. apology against Russine , speaking of Heretikes , conuicti de perfidia sayth he ad maledicta se conferunt . And Constantine a a Euseb. de vit. Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. directing his words to heretikes , chargeth them with vaine lyes . Cognoscite sayth he , quibus mendacijs vestrae doctrinae inanit as implicata teneatur .

In fauour of the Papists he braggeth , that he hath produced the sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world , to wit , the determination of all the highest ecctesiasticall tribunals . But if by Parliaments he meane generall Councels , he abuseth his clients , and all the world . For it were great simplicitie , if vpon his word they should suppose , either that Popery is authorized by ancient generall Councels , or that the late conuenticles of Laterane , Constance , Florence and Trent ordered by the Popes direction were lawfull Councels . He doth also erre grossely , if he affirme it . Finally he contradicteth his owne holy fathers pleasure , if he affirme the Councell to be aboue the Pope , and the highest tribunall on earth .

The words of the Apostle , Philip. 1. he applieth to such Papists as haue bene of late time called in question for treason and felony , as if they did not only beleeue in Christ , but also suffer for him . Whereof the second is euidently false , as publike records testifie ; the first is doubtfull , seeing heretikes cannot be counted true beleeuers .

Likewise he abuseth other scriptures 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thess. 1. and Isa. 1. like the Valentinians , endeuouring to wrest the sacred word of God to his owne fancies , and fabulous discourses . Aptare volunt sayth Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres . ca. 1. fabulis suis eloquia Dei . Saint Paule 1. Cor. 11. and 1. Thess. 1. speaketh of true Christians , that followed Christ Iesus , and his Apostles : this Iebusite talketh of such , as follow Antichrist , and hearken to the Ieud perswasions of the false Apostles of Satan . That which the Prophet Isay , chap. 1. speaketh of purging the Church of God , the same he applieth to the rusty followers of Antichrist , whom he seeketh to continue in their disorders , and errors .

Neither could he conceale the stirres that haue bene in England betweene the secular priests , and the Iebusites , although good it were for him , that they were neuer remembred , he being conuinced by the testimonie of his owne followers in diuers discourses written of this argument , to be a Machiauelian , 2 traytor , and a diuell . Here also he applieth the words meant of our Sauiour , Matth. 8. to Antichrist the destroyer , as if he rising vp could command winds & seas , and cause calmes ; who indeede rather causeth stormes , then calmes ; warres , then peace ; and is the firebrand of troubles throughout all Christendome . Further he entitleth him Christes substitute . But his outragious persecutions of Gods saints , shew him to be Christes aduersary , rather then substitute . Commission or act of substitution he sheweth none . But of the other we find diuers arguments Dan. 8. and 11. 2. Thess. 2. Apocalyp. 13. and 17. which in my bookes de pontif . Rom. are at large declared .

In an addition to his epistle he triumpheth ouer Queene Elizabeth of pious memory , and raileth at her , as a persecutor , whose clemencie her greatest enemies cannot chuse but acknowledge : and he among the rest , if he were not vngratefull . But herein the heathen Philosophers do accuse him . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sayth Homer odyss . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And another , de mortuis nil nisi bonum . Herein therefore the prouerbe is verified , that Hares insult ouer dead Lyons . If he had not bene a renegate Christian , and fugitiue traytor , he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate , or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant . Neither if he had bene wise , would he haue mentioned these two examples , himselfe in apostacie being like the one , and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other .

From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King , whom he compareth vnto Constantine . And yet not many yeares since , in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England , and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine , who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery . And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him , and his whole house . Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note , singing that only which maketh for his profit . Modo palliatus , modo togatus . Now he playeth Dolman , now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius , vnum portentum est , duo nomina , that is , one monster , two titles . Yet such is the folly of this parasite , that thinking to praise the King , he doth greatly dishonor him , comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie , and implying , that the King is no Christian.

He talketh of the Kings preseruation ; yet may we probably suppose , that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last , and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since , for intending the destruction of the kings Maiesty , and the subuersion of the realme , as appeareth by a publike edict against them .

In commending the Kings booke , he condemneth his religion : as if any could be more dishonored , then by imputation of want of religion . Againe he contradicteth himselfe , commending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God , and godlinesse : and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity , and inanity of sects and heresies , where no ground , no head , no certaine principle , no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found . Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion , which his Maiesty professeth , or cleanly auoyd in that sect , which he followeth , being a pack of impieties , blasphemies , heresies , nouelties , vncerteinties , contradictions , absurdities and fooleries . The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion , wherein we declare , that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus , the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it , and full of sincere wisedome ; but also approoued by Councels , Fathers , consent of nations , miracles , yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages . The second is euident by the schoole doctrine of the Masse , of the Sacraments , of the Pope , of Purgatory , Indulgences , works of supererogation , and such like . For what more impious , then to say , that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist ? What more blasphemous , then to giue Gods honor to stocks , stones , and to Antichrist ? What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature , and office , and to worship Angels , Saints and Images ? What more new then the doctrine of Constance , Florence , Trent , concerning the massing sacrifice , the communion vnder one kind , the subsisting of accidents without substance , indulgences and such like ? What more vncertaine , then popish religion , that dependeth vpon the Popes determination , a man oftentimes blind , vnlearned , and variable ? What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible , aboue and below , dead and aliue at one time ? What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome , or to say with the Donatists , that it is perished out of the whole world , saue in one corner of the Romish church ? Finally what more foolish , then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar , of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches , and such like superstitious ceremonies ?

In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue , that man is mutable , by his owne example , that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions . But that is little for his credit , or the credit of his cause . For what if he turne like a weather-cocke , and renounce religion ? would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe ? Truth also is constant , and alwayes like it selfe . But falsehood varieth , and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood . Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis , emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas , sayth Hilary to Constantius . The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite , who being vncertaine in his resolution , and leauing matters formerly purposed , brought forth matters neuer designed , for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog . Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion , & condemneth the sluggishnes of them , that are carelesse in this behalfe . But his words are contrary to the Romish practise , that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence , and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion . Much , certes , it were to be wished , that men would do as he sayth , for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists , and see , that popery is not Catholike , as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England . Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke , nor darkenes continue , when light appeareth .

To preuent perillous courses , and to giue light , where certeinty of religion lyeth , he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions . But alas , the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion , as the East is from the West . For what assurance can he haue of religion , who doth beleeue neither Propheticall , nor Apostolical writings , nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution , and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes , Surius , Baronius , and other fabulous writers , and vaine and vncertaine traditions , of which he hath no certeinty ? Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history , and not matter of faith or doctrine . Lastly , he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body , by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon , then to keepe them from any danger . Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised . In this preface , I confesse , he compareth the Church to a mansion house , and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same , promising that he will make proofe , that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists , as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons , and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons . But first there is great difference betweene the Church , and a mansion house : the Church being a mysticall body , and being scattered here and there , and not being appropriated to any family , city , or nation : and a mansion house being a ciuill and artificiall building situate in one place , and belonging to one family or sort of people . Secondly seuerall points of doctrine are rudely compared to seuerall parcels ofland , which are corporeall , and may be translated from one to another , whereas points of Christian doctrine are matters spiritual , and cannot be held & truly professed , but by the members of the true Church . In like sort the Arians by their grosse similitudes depraued such matters , as were well spoken , as sayth Athanasius orat . 4. contr. Arian . Incorporalia sayth he , corporaliter excipientes , quae probè dicta erant , deprauarunt . Thirdly neither shall he euer prooue , that the right of the Church belongeth to the Pope and his adherents , nor shall he exclude vs from the precincts of the true Church , howsoeuer in his Luciferian pride he do here despise and scorne vs . His marks of Antiquitie and Succession are neither the proper notes of the Church , nor were they so to be taken , can he , if by succession he meane discent of true doctrine , either take them from vs , or giue them to the Popes adherents , who rather belong to the synagogue of Sathan , then to the Church of God .

In the latter end of his Praeface he taketh vpon him the person of a Doctor , and layeth downe foure points of consideration about matters of faith . The first is , that our articles of faith are aboue mans reason . The second , that they haue sufficient arguments of credibility . The third is , that it behooueth vs to haue a pious affection . The fourth is , that some articles of our faith may be demonstrated and knowne by force of humane reason . But first , he sheweth himselfe a vaine and arrogant companion , that in matters where he is party , taketh on him to be a Doctor , not distinguishing betwixt a barre , & a Doctors chaire . Secondly , all thèse schoole-points are matters far distant from the argument of Three Conuersions , which he vndertaketh to handle . For I hope he will not affirme , that his Three Conuersions be matters of faith . Thirdly , his first and last point contradict one another . For if all the articles of our faith are aboue mans reason , as he sayth , handling the first point , then are not some articles of faith demonstrable by force of reason : which is also the doctrine of the Apostle , who sheweth vs , that the naturall man vnderstandeth not the things of the spirit of God . Fourthly , by pious affection he absurdly vnderstandeth a good opinion of the Pope and his slaues the Iebusites , and Masse-priests . But how can Christians haue a good opinion of them , whom holy Scriptures declare to be false teachers , and vpholders of the kingdome of Antichrist , and experience declareth to be professed enemies of piety and godlinesse ? Fiftly he concludeth very absurdly , because some matters of faith are demonstrable by reason , that he hath so discussed matters in his treatise of Three Conuersions , as that all matters thereby may be cleared . For neither doth his treatise properly concerne matter of faith , nor hath he done such glorious acts , as he braggeth of . Finally these points do little relieue Parsons . For if we are to talke of matters of religion with great reuerence and submission , then are the writings of the Schoolemen scandalous , that dispute pro and contra in all matters of religion . Parsons also dealeth very lewdly , who attributeth more to Philosophical demonstrations , then to arguments inducing vs to beleeue matters of religion . Next if there be matters sufficient in religion to induce vs to beleeue , then are not the articles of Popery to be beleeued , we hauing more inducements to reiect them , then to beleeue them . Thirdly if matters are to be scanned before they be receiued , as Parsons inferreth ; then most blind are the Papists , that beleeuing the Pope and his adherents to be the Church , drinke vp all the abhominations , which the whore of Babylon doth present vnto them , without all examination , whether they be consonant to holy Scriptures & the faith of the ancient Fathers , or not . Fourthly if matters are to be examined with serenitie of mind , why are Papists forbidden to reade our bookes , to heare our reasons , nay without licence to reade the Scriptures ? Why do they condemne them , whose cause they refuse to heare or know ? Lastly this his treatise of Three Conuersions is not such a braue peece of worke , as he imagineth , nor shall he gaine any one iote ofhis cause thereby . For first ; it is either false that the ancient Britains were conuerted by S. Peter , and Eleutherius , or else very doubtfull . Likewise it is a matter questionable , whether Austin the Monke , or some other did first conuert the Saxons to the Christian faith .