The first part concerning the errors that he layd (ap. 3. par. 2.) both to the fathers, and to vs, and first of the crosse and images. Bristowe.

First, where I charge them, that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentini­ans, Fulke. that the reader may wonder at my audacitie, he saith, Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure, nor signe, nor vse of the crosse, but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones, and in them two or 3. Christes, and one of the Christs, they cal­led Crux, &c. what say you Bristowe, speake they not a [Page 17] worde, either of the figure, signe, or vse of the crosse? I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus, where he telleth that they call the Zodiak (whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen) an image of the crosse. And when they both tell you, that the crosse a­mong the Valentinians, had a double vse of confirma­tion and separation, speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse? No (say you) they inuented 30 gods cal­led Aeones, and among them diuerse Christs, wherof the crosse was one. It is a shame to lye on the diuell. The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes, but emissions of the first great inuisible & infinite Acone. Neither was the crosse, any of those 30. Aeones, ages, or worldes. For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus, be­fore he cometh to the crosse: videlicet 8. of the first emissi­on, tenne of the seconde; and twelue of the thirde. Nei­ther did they call the crosse Christ, but the vertue of Christ, confirmatiue & separatiue, such as healed y ^e wo­man of the bloudie issue. Vnto which they gaue diuerse names, calling it in a manner as you papists doe, the re­deemer, the sauior, the sanctifier, the apoynter of the bounds, the bringer vnto further matters, the most per­fect ende or termination, &c. But all this while, you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse, but of a fained mysterie or imagination. Then you must vn­derstand, that of these imagined mysteries, they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in the world, made to be similitudes and images: Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the crosse y ^t Christ suffered vpon, and all other crosses made to the similitude of it, of which S. Paul by their fantasie shoulde say, God forbidde that I should reioyce but in the crosse of Christ, &c. whose figures that they vsed in their consecration and baptizing, it may ap­peare in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the crosse be not named, yet their termes of redemp­tion, confirmation & diuision which they vsed, in pow­ring on of water, annoynting them, doe infinyate, that they vsed some signes of the crosse to whome they gaue those titles, as before is shewed. Finally when it is cer­tein [Page 18] by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those simili­tudes and images in materiall thinges, were made vnto the honour of their inuisible and spirituall phantasies, there is no doubt but they had in great price the mate­riall image or signe of the crosse, for reuerence of that high mysterie whereof they dreamed the same to be an image or similitude.

Concerning the images of Iesus, which the Carpo­cratians and other like heretikes made, and worship­ped, Bristow sayth, it toucheth not the papistes, because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers, like as the Samaritans ioyned the wor­shipping of false Gods, with the worshipping of our Lorde. If I shoulde obiect vnto you, the worshipping of the images of saint Sonday, saint Hardhuffe, saint Vn­comber, yea saint Christopher, and saint George on horseback, which al were meere Idolls after your owne diffinition of Idols, I wote not howe you coulde quite your selfe, from the case of the Samaritanes. But Ire­naeus and Epiphanius charge the heretikes, not onely for ioyning the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of Iesus, but also for fayning the Image of Iesus, and worshipping it. Irenaeus againste Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutly, Viuntur autem & imaginibus & incātationibus, & invocationibus &c. They vse images, and inchauntmentes, & inuocations and all the rest of superstitions. Here he placeth the vse of ima­ges with inchauntementes, inuocation of spirites, and other superstitions of magike, and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith, ‘ Etiam imagines quasdam &c. Also they haue certayne images painted, and some made of other matter, saying that the forme of Christ was made by Pilate, in y ^t time which Iesus was with men.’ If it had not beene a faulte to haue had these counterfete images, Irenaeus woulde not haue ioyned it amonge other hereticall practises of the Carpocra­tians. The like sayth Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes, ‘ Haere. 24 Habent imagines &c. They haue images paynted in coulers, some also haue them of [Page 19] golde and siluer and other matter, which they say, are the images of Iesus, and that these images of Iesus were made vnder Pontius Pilate, when he was conuersant a­mongest men. And these images they haue closely. Moreouer they haue the images of certaine Philoso­phers &c.’ Who seeth not by this context, that Epiphani­us accompted it hereticall, to haue such images in any vse of religion, although they had not made any other images of philosophers besides? Also against the Col­lyridians, which with certayne cakes offering as the Pa­pistes doe candles, worshipped the image of the virgin Marie: he asketh, what this desire of making images can be, else, but a deuilish enterprise? yet the Collyri­dians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the vir­gin Marie. Neither doeth hee simply charge them that they worshipped her, as a God, but ‘ siue velut ipsam, &c. Whether these foolish women offer this cake to her, as worshipping Marie her selfe: or whether they go about to offer the saide stincking offering for her, the whole matter is folishe and straunge, and a fraude and deceite of the motion of diuelles. Therefore that I extende my speech no longer, let that which hath beene sayde, suf­fice. Let Marie be in honor, let the Lord be worship­ped.’ And what thinke you, woulde he haue iudged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women, to the images of the virgin Marie, which coulde not abyde to see a vaile in which was painted the image of Christ, or some sainct, hanging in a Church of Christians, but rent it in peeces, at Anablatha? Epiph. Epist. ad Ioan, Hi­eron. But for the defence of Images: Bristowe referreth the reader to Sanders booke of Images: and I likewise to my confutation of the same. In the meane time, it is a small matter, that Bristowe vrgeth my confession, that crossing at euery step, (which is, saith he, a making and great religion of Images) is referred by Tertulli­an vnto tradition of the Apostles, seeing that is shewed to haue a later and corrupter beginning, and other fa­bles beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolike tra­dition.

2 Of inuocation of sainctes, and worshipping of their re­liques. Bristowe.

You remember since the 3. chapter (sayth Bristow) by your owne report that the true Church counted Vi­gilantius Fulke. an heretike for denying the inuocation of Sainctes, and the worshipping of their reliques. I aun­swere, y ^t I remember no such matter, neither do I finde any where, that Vigilantius was publikely condemned for an heretike, in his time, but onely in the priuate iudgement of Hierome, although Bernardus long after account him litle better. But of worshipping the reliques of Sainctes, and of their images, the case (say you) is all one: then by Hieromes iudgement, nei­ther of both is to be worshipped. ‘For wee worship not, sayth he, the reliques of Martyrs, no nor the sunne and Moone, no not Angelles and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim &c: But we honor the reliques of the mar­tyrs, that wee may worshippe him whose witnesses the martyrs are.’ By which saying, and other to the same effecte, it is manifest, that although Hierome de­fended some honoring, or moderat reuerēce of reliques, yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them, and much more of their images. Where I say, the supersti­tion of reliques is receiued of the Ossenes: Bristowe sayth it perteyneth not to them, because the Ossenes worshipped them for Gods, whose reliques they had in such, estimation. But that is false: for they helde Mar­thys and Marthana for Sainctes, proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they neuer worshipped, but as a great Prophet and teacher, although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur, they were worshipped as Gods: mea­ning that worship which is proper vnto God onely, was giuen to them, as it is of Papistes vnto sainctes, whome they worship as God, geuing that worshipp vnto them, which is proper onely vnto God, as faith & inuocation. But Bristow would haue the snottie cloutes of Thomas Becket, that were worshipped after his death, to bee all [Page 21] one with the napkins and partletts, that were caried frō the bodie of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out vncleane spi­rites, when hee liued: which napkins and partletts, yet he cannot proue either, that they were euer worship­ped, or that they were reserued for reliques, after the worke of miracles was wrought by them. As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh, against the Pagans, of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr, which he would haue me to applie to my disease, was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie, not to the setting vp or main­teyning thereof. And what worshippe I pray you, was giuen to the reliques of Babylas? If God shewed mira­cles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne, as by the bones of Elizeus, yet it followeth not, that his body or ashes, were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were.

Concerning inuocation of Angels, which they haue common with the Caianes, Bristowe sheweth, that the Caianes had other greater heresies, which the papistes holde not, as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser.

The superstition of Angels, that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians, and Collossians to beware of, hee sayth, they be cleare of it, because in all their prayers, they conclude per Christum &c. Through Christ our Lorde: as though they that taught the superstition of Angels, did cleane exclude Christ, or that it was to be doubted, lest the Ephesians and Collosians, would forsake Christ, and cleaue to Angels, but rather lest with the religion of Christ, as the cheefe, they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels, whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati, bowed downe in y ^e worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith, which there­fore helde not the heade, because they worshipped not him alone, but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie. That Angels are ministring spirits, it proueth not, that there­fore they must be prayed vnto, but the contrarie, for inuocation is due onely to him on whome wee beleeue, which is God onely. So much the more blasphemous [Page 22] is Bristowe, that chargeth Saint Iohn, Apoc. 1. to haue prayed to the Angels, where he sayth, Grace and peace bee to you from him, that is, and was, and is to come: and from the 7. spirites, that are before his throne, and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all aunci­ent writers is, that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost, which is seuen folde in his graces, according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him, the spirite of wisedome and vnder­standing, the spirite of counsell and power, &c. And it is also euident, that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision, according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God ac­cording to the number of seuen Churches of Asia, to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation, for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde. Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels, as some late writers do, yet it followeth not, that S. Iohn shoulde pray vnto them, in those wor­des, but rather to God for their ministerie to the pre­seruation of the Churches: No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vnto them from heauen, it followeth that he prayeth vnto heauen. That phrase is often in the Psalmes, wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion, from the holy Hill, from the Temple, from heauen: and yet no man was so madde to say, that prayers was made to Sion, to the Hill, to the Temple, to heauen. And yet it is more monstrous, that hee char­geth me to forget, that in the same booke of the Apo­calips, God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come, and to adore before the feete of one Angell. And they shall know that I haue loued thee &c. I speak vnto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it. Wast thou awake when thou didest p [...]ruse this argument, and allowed it? Tell me by thy credite, is this the Angell of the Church of Phi­ladelphia, of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood, for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose [Page 23] worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this con­trouersie? Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen? is any of those Angels nei­ther whote nor colde in the seruice of God? hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade? hath any of them left his first loue? doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach &c? Out vpon thine impu­dence, if thou affirme all this, and fie vpon thy negli­gence, if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument, if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest. As for thee Bristowe, it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master repro­ued for thy fault at this time, to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast, that da­rest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of y ^e ho­ly scripture, against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of.

3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate, and from marriage. Bristowe.

Bristow would haue the question of prescript fasting Fulke. dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one, as they are accompted among the Papistes. But there is great difference. For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes ap­pointed by the church to be obserued, did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster, teach abstinence from flesh. Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse, that the Papists haue the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes, common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche. For on their prescript fasting dayes (except for necessitie) they did eate neither fish nor flesh, nor any thing vntill the euening. As for the abstinence from meates, against which Iouinian did teach, was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues, not onely from fleshe, but also from fish and wine also, as appeareth by Hiero­nyme, ‘ con. Iouin. lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces, &c. Neither say we this (sayth Hieronyme) that we de­ny fishes and the rest of meates, if a mans will may be taken in meate, but as wee preferre virginitie before [Page 24] marriage, so fasting and the spirite, before fulnesse & flesh.’ Likewise, in diuers places, he speaketh of the ab­stinence from wine. Furthermore, he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say, the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie, from the Tatianistes, Manichees; & Montanistes. If I brought no proofe in that place, it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe, what Euse­bius reporteth out of Apollonius, lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting. And that the Manichees in their electes, and the Tatia­nistes in their perfectes, allowed not marriage, out of Epiphanius & Augustine. But where I charge the Pa­pistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh, Bri­stowe sayeth, I take Richard for Robert, because the Aerians abstained from fleshe, as the Manichees, Tatia­nistes, & Montanistes, as perteining to the yll god, ac­cording to the heresie of the Valentinians. Admit it were so, yet how cā either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of er­rour, whose fruite is forbidding of marrying & eating of meates, 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhomina­ble, for what cause of religion so euer it be? And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie, it is more probable that he speaketh against y ^e Papists, than against those open blasphemers. But howe proueth Bristowe, that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites? Forsooth, because Augustine sayeth: ‘ Qui­dam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas, non admit­tere ad communionem suam nisi continentes, & eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint, vt propria nulla possideant, ab es [...]a tamen car­nium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius: Philaster verò & hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam: Some say, that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie, but onely such as conteine from marriage, and haue so renounced the world, that they possesse no pro­per goods, yet Epiphanius sayeth not, that they abstain from eating of flesh: but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence.’

[Page 25] The similitude (which Bristowe by falsifying S. Au­gustine and displacing his wordes) would haue to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites, is onely in the absti­nence from marriage and meates, and possessions, not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained. For seeing Aerius was an Arrian, he could not hold the plu­ralitie of Gods. For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead, that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance. And although he were the scholer of Eustachius, yet it followeth not y ^t he held all pointes as his maister did. Augustine chargeth him to haue ad­ded these matters of his owne. Beside that, diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists, concerning the marriage of priestes, and the ab­stinence from meates, howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry, and hope to them that eate fleshe: yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write, that they which be marryed be in the flesh, and cannot please God: Ep. ad Him. Tarrat. And what a daun­gerous matter the Papistes count it, to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited, all the world doth know.

4 Of Ceremonies, and Liturgies. Bristowe.

The church is S. Augustines times approued vnpro­fitable Fulke. and hurtfull vsages, because Augustine complai­neth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth, that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued. Bri­stowe quarreling, that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission: answereth that Augu­stine in the same epistle sayeth, ‘ Tamen ecclesia, &c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is a­gainst the faith, or against good life.’ And I reply not­withstanding, y ^t they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages. For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle. ‘ Quamuis enim, &c. For although neither this can be founde, howe they are against the faith, yet they op­presse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens, which [Page 26] the mercie of God would haue to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations, so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable, which al­though they haue not knowen the time of libertie, yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens, & not to humaine presumptions.’ But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine, that if the whole church vse any thing, it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question, whether that should be so vsed. I answere, wee speake of approuing of vsages, not of any thing that is generally vsed. The church is S. Augustines time, approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent, without open abrogation, which yet were di­uerse in diuerse places.

Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this rea­son, that many of them are abrogated, he answereth, that is no good argument, for there might be good cause to abrogate them, although they came of the tra­dition of the Apostles: as y ^e decree of not eating blood nor strangled, Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and pro­phesie bareheaded. To the former decree I reply, that it was temporall, and not meant by the makers to be e­ternall, but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time. To the other custome of praying or prea­ching bareheaded, whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue, I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head, and the obser­uing of naturall comlinesse in both, although for ne­cessitie of health a nightcap, kercheffe or such like co­uering, according to the custome of the country, be not absolutely prohibited. As for y ^e forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes, which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection, and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees, which might be abroga­ted, nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe, & so [Page 27] [...]et it passe, although I knowe not what he meaneth to say, that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obser­ued: for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes. As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies, is neuer denied of me: but fond­ly alledged of him, which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued, as com­maundements of the scripture, referring euery blynde ceremonie, whereof he knoweth none author, to tradi­tion of the Apostles.

Nowe concerning the Liturgies, he sayth, Proclus an­swereth why Basil & Chrysostome changed the aunci­ent Liturgies that were before them: he sayth, forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames, which was too lōg for the peoples cold deuo­tion. But his reason will soone proue all the three Li­turgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames, Basil, and Chrysostome, to be counterfeits, for ther is small difference in the length of them, and in a manner none at all. As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo, doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames, Basil, & Chrysostome, but that proueth not these which we haue at this day, to be the same, seeing there are ma­nifest arguments to the contrary, as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour, & Nicholas the bishop, in Chrysostome, which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death. But that prayers for the dead, were vsed in y ^e ancient Liturgies, that were before Chry­sostomes tyme, Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration, Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me, ‘ in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra, &c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles, that in the celebration of the holy my­steries, memorie should be made of them that are hence departed, &c.’ This saying proueth a remembrance, but not a prayer, neuerthelesse of this remembrance v­sed in the elder times, they gathered prayers to be pro­fitable. But more clearely, that it was a remembrance [Page 28] without prayers, it appeareth by Epiphanius, which in­terpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners, and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ, cont. Aer. ser. 75.

5 Of sacrifice: and for the deade. Bristowe.

The name of sacrifice, which the fathers vsed commō ­ly for the celebration of the Lords supper, they tooke of Fulke. the Gentiles, you might adde and of the Iewes also, for that somewhere I doe affirme. But howe proue you, they had it of the scriptures? Because Christ saide not this is I, that was borne of the virgin, but this is my body, this is my bloude. The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely, that he is guiltie of Christ, but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe, doest thou dreame? we speake of the name of sacrifice, whe­ther it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper. But if I knewe (saith he) what is the sacri­fice of a liue thing, I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner, as he was pro­perly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner. Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth, when hee exhorteth vs to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice, Rom 12. & yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand, your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie, vnder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade.

Also as blinde as you make me, I see the Altar, Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate, so long as they remaine in Iudaisme, but that sacrifice is the death of Christ, whereof none that continue in obserua­tion of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers. As for the table of the Lorde, and the table of diuels, in one forme of speach, 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes ta­ble, opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils, but the feast of the Lordes table, contrarie to the feast of the idoll of­ferings, whereof the controuersie was, and not of com­municating with the sacrifices of the Gentils. For if hee [Page 29] had ment of the sacrifices of both, he woulde haue na­ [...]ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels. For [...] alter is proper for a sacrifice, as a table for a feast or [...]past. So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion, I can­ [...]ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture, of [...]ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper, But [...]ontrariwise I finde in the scripture, that he offered on­ [...]y one sacrifice propitiatorie, and that but once vpon the [...]rosse: Heb. 9. & 10.

Purgatorie.

Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima, cap. de recep­ [...]u, that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable he­resies did, seing all philosophers that graunted the im­mortalitie of the soule, as Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, assigned three places for the soules departed, Hea­uen, hell, and a thirde place of purifying. This argu­ment (saith Bristowe) proueth as wel, that heauen, hel, & [...]he immortalitie of the soule, had their originall of the [...]hilosophers. He is a perillous Logician that can so cō ­ [...]ude. For heauen, hel, and the immortalitie of the soule, [...]re founde in the scriptures, which are before all philo­sophers, but of the thirde place of purifying, we may say as Augustine doth, contra Pelag. hypognost. lib. 5. Tertium pe­ [...]itus ignoramus. The thirde place we know not at al, nei­ther doe we finde it in the holy scriptures. But if I would reporte the trueth (Bristowe saith) there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying, but that those philoso­phers, made onely two sorts of receptacles. But if I find three and the third a place of purifying, what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth? First hee graunteth supernas mansiones, the high mansions for the soules of the Philo­sophers and wise men onely: secondly Inferos, hell, or the lowe places, whereof Tertulian saith ‘ Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt, the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell:’ 3. What say you Bristowe, al the soules except Philosophers soules? Could you not see betweene them, imprudentes animas, the foolish soules, remayning (accor­ding [Page 30] to the Stoikes) about the earth, which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules. What was this, but a third place, and a place of purifying? But if you woulde haue your purgatorie more plainely described, you may re­sort to Virgil, Aeneid. 6. where Anchises out of the opi­nion of Pythagoras, rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged: ‘ Quin & supremo cum lumine vita reliquit, &c. After this life hath left them’ (saith he) yet is not all euill, nor all the infections of the bodie departed frō them, and it is necessarie that such things as haue beene long gathered together, shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away. Therefore they are exercised with paines, and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills: some soules, are hanged vp against the voyde windes, to some their sinne remayning, is washed away vnder great ra­ging waters, or burned vp with fire. Euery one of vs suf­fer our punishments, and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes &c.

Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie, which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented, & proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing, as the papists doe theirs: Bristow saith, by this argument, I wil winne much honestie, bicause the purgatorie that Car­pocrates inuented, was a wallowing in all sinfull opera­tion &c. What is that to mine honestie? I saide he inuen­ted a kinde of purgatorie, and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie. I said he proued his purga­torie as the papists doe theirs, but to that Bristowe aun­swereth neuer a worde. But this is small honestie, for Bristow, that such things as are ioyned together by me, to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection, they are seuered by him, as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes, to confute their purgatorie.

Purgatorie fire.

I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists. For Origen brought in the purging fire by better rea­son [Page 31] out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules, then the papistes doe [...]r some soules: and the name of purgatorie fire, began [...]bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would [...]ccorde Origens error, which was of purging all soules, [...]ith the erronius practise of praying for the deade, out [...]f which, they gathered the purging of some soules. That I say of Origen, although Bristowe confesse it to [...]e true in effect, yet he saith I speake it without proofe. My proofe is in ‘ Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contem­ [...]imus &c. But if in this life we contemne y ^e words of the diuine scripture admonishing vs, and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof, it is certaine that fire abideth vs which is prepared for sinners, and we shal come vnto y ^t fire, in which of what sort euery mans work is, y ^e fire shall trie. And (as I thinke) it is of necessitie that wee must all come vnto that fire. Although one be Paul or Peter, yet he commeth to y ^t fire. But they that are such do heare. Although thou passe through fire, y ^e flame [...]hal not burn thee. But if any be a sinner like me, he shal [...]ome in deede vnto y ^t fire as Peter & Paul, but he shall [...]ot so passe through it as Peter & Paul.’ More of his ge­ [...]eral purgation of al men, and not y ^e damned onely, you [...]ay read in ‘ Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo, &c. Thou se­ [...]st howe euery man that departeth out of the battel of this life, hath neede of purification, &c.’ yet saith Bristow, that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour, there is no word, which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult. Hae. 43. yet he saith vntrue­ly, for thus he writeth in the same place: ‘ Sunt & alia, &c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Ca­tholike Church doth not receiue at all, in which it doth not falsely accuse him, neither can be so excused by his defenders especially: cōcerning purgation & deliuerāce: and againe after long time the reuolution vnto y ^e same euils of euery reasonable creature.’ I suppose he y ^t spea­keth of the purgation of euery reasonable creature, spea­keth of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also, wherefore it is manifest, that Origen erred not only a­bout hell & heauen, and the purgation of the damned, [Page 32] but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour. Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine ar­gument, as he doth in scorne. There is no such Purga­torie as Origen & Carpocrates would haue, therefore there is no purgatorie at all. But what should Carpo­crates come in this title? but for a sorie sophisme, whē we speake of Origen onely. Wherefore if you wil giue mee leaue to frame mine argument (although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onely) it should be thus: There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour: such as Ori­gens fire, is the fire that the papistes would haue: there­fore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde haue.

Releeuing of the dead by prayer.

If the dead be not releeued, we say (quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith) they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation. And for this saying, hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe, where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation, or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing? Hee saith the fire shall trie euery mans worke. Is euery man onely some kinde of deade men? or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe? or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is, a purga­tion either of the man or of the worke? Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that, whereof hee saith nothing at all? euen by the iudgement of S. Au­gustine. But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable, I shewed by that of the most auncient writers. The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead w ^t inuocations, and to redeem them with oyle, balme and water, and inuocations said ouer their heades, as Augu­stine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus. Nowe com­meth Bristowe, and in many needelesse words, rehear­seth other partes of their heresie, with their manner of [Page 33] seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them, by a counterfait marriage and baptisme, and by anoynting with balme, &c. concluding that this practise of theirs, maketh as much against true baptisme & solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead, anealing, or anoynting, &c. Likewise might they conclude, that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and mar­riage. But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of here­tikes, we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention, from that which is the ordinance of God. And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention, but by the holy scriptures? Sepa­rating therefore baptisme and marrying, which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures, from the rest that haue no ground in the same, prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters, were the inuention of heretikes. Howbeit (saith Bristowe) of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde. No was? Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much & could not see, that after he hath spo­ken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue, he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead: ‘ Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt, &c. Other there be, that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing, powring on their heads oyle & water, or the foresaid oyntment, with wa­ter, and with the foresaid inuocations &c?’ Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead, which they vttered before for the liuing?

But if the Heracleonites should faile mee, I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of y ^e Pa­pistes, because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist, and especially in his booke de anima. That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes, Bri­stow wil not denye: But he asketh, whether all be Mon­tanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de ani­ma, and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist? No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes. Howe [Page 34] then shall we discerne that which is proper to Monta­nus, from that which he hath common with the catho­like church? I deliuered a rule euen nowe, concerning the practise of the Heracleonites. Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures, but they are found in a disciple of Montanus, therfore they stinke of Montanisme. Adde hereunto that in so ma­ny bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike, there is no mention of prayer for the dead, or suffering after this life of the faithfull. Last of all, Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly, that Paracletus, the com­forter (by which he meant the spirite of Montanus) had reuealed very often, that euery small offence must be punished after this life, in that the soule of any except martyrs, shall not go immediatly into Paradise, but ta­rie in prison vntil it haue payde the vttermost farthing. What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus, if he had spoken nothing but that which was common­ly receiued in the catholike Church? Which saying, sith I haue set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by you quoted, you needed not to haue made a question, whether this opiniō were Montanisme or no. But when you can saye nothing against this as­sertion your selfe, you would make me vncertein of it, and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine, because in one place, before I come to the found proofe of it, I say it is a probable coniecture. And doeth it followe therefore, that I doubt of it, because I offer a probable coniecture to other mens vnderstanding, before by or­der of the discourse, I am brought to the manifest pro­bation of it? The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulnesse, shewe your ordinarie manner of colle­ctions. And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes added prayers for the spirites of them that were dead, &c. Purg. 417. What vncerteintie is of that matter, whereof it is not otherwise to be thought? A­gaine: Finally, it appeareth, that the faithfull in Tertullians time allowed no prayers for the dead. Pur. 419. Call you that doubtfull which appeareth by plaine demonstration [Page 35] before, pag. 417?

But for all your fine frumpe in the margent (all in Tertulian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not men­tion) it is a probable coniecture, that prayer for y ^e dead, whereof Tertullian speaketh, was vsed onely in the con­uenticles of Montanistes, because Cyprian which long after liued in Carthage, in all his workes, maketh no mention of prayers for the dead. But I weene Cyprian maketh expresse mention of prayers for the dead, by my confession, as Bristowe would haue men thinke, be­cause I saye, of one place alledged by Allen, that it hath some couler for Purgatorie, which by flowe of argu­ments I easely washe of, that I neede not sticke in the lyme, as Bristowe sayeth I doe: but howe I am faste­ned therein, he sayeth neuer a worde.

Oblations for the dead.

I sayde that oblations for the dead, although at the first they were but of thankesgiuing, were taken of the Gentiles, as appeareth by Tertulliā, who counteth them of one originall or beginning with oblations for the birth dayes, falsely fathering them vpon tradition of y ^e Apostles, as he doth other vanities in the same place, whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles, as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus, a Papist, affir­ming, that by the Canons of the Nicen councell and o­ther councels which he had seene in librarijs, they were abrogated and taken away. Bristowe sayeth, he is but a poore antiquarie, which knoweth not, that Natalitia in olde time, were as they nowe are the dayes of Mar­tyrs sufferings: And yet he can name neuer an olde writer iustly, that calleth them natalitia. He nameth in deede Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum: the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs. What print he followeth I knowe not, but my booke hath natali­bus and not natalitijs: betweene which wordes there is some difference. As for Martyrologies whether hee [Page 36] sendeth vs, I knowe none of such antiquitie, that they may be iudges in this case.

Tullie is a better witnesse what natalitia, being a sub­stantiue, in olde time did signifie, namely, the feasts that were kept for the ioye of mens birthdaye ‘ in Ant. Hodie non descendit Antonius. Cur? Dat natalitia in hortis. Antonie commeth not downe to day. Why so? He keepeth the feaste of his birthdaye in his garden.’ Wherefore Pamelius, as great an antiquarie as you make him, vn­iustly reproueth Rhenanus, for vnderstanding natalitia in Tertullian, to be feastes of the birthdayes vsed after the example of the Gentiles. The places you cite out of Cyprian, speake neither of natales nor natalitia, but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemo­ration or remembrance of y ^e Martyrs sufferings, which could be none other but sacrifices of thankesgiuing, ac­cording to your owne doctrine. Wherefore you shewe nothing to the contrary, but that Tertullian vsing the worde natalitia, vnderstandeth it for feastes of the birth­daye, and not of the death of Martyrs. And beside the authoritie of Rhenanus and Tully, for the signification of the worde natalitia, I oppose against you these rea­sons. First, that he addeth not the name of Martyrs, as all they that vse natalitia or natales for the daye of their departure, but sayeth generally, pro natalitijs. Second­ly, that he spake immediatly before of oblations pro defunctis, for the dead, which you vnderstande for all faithfull departed out of the worlde: therefore pro na­talitijs, signifyeth the oblation for the birth of all Chri­stians come into the worlde. Thirdly, seeing he had before named oblations for the dead, it were absurde to vnderstand pro natalitijs for the dead also, without any more explication. Fourthly, if natalitia should signifie the feastes of the death of Martyrs (as you say,) it will followe also, which I do vrge of the place, that oblati­ons pro defunctis for the dead, were but oblations of thankesgiuing as those for the death of Martyrs, which are conteined in one worde or phrase. As for that you adde out of Origen, in Iob. lib 3. Wee celebrate not [Page 37] the daye of birth, &c. But the daye of death, sheweth the custome of the Greeke Church, and not of the La­tine, and their celebrating of their daye of birth with ioye and thankesgiuing, as the daye of the beginning of felicitie, and ende of all sorrowes vnto the deade, cleane ouerthroweth your opinion of Purgatorie, and prayer for the dead, as in his time, not yet entred into the Greeke Church. Beside that, he speaketh of the death of all men, and not of Martyrs onely, as you violently would wrest him.

Beeres to carry home the corpses.

He maketh a foolish quarell vppon my saying, that George of Alexandria inuented beeres for lucres sake, as the Papistes their bearing clothes, and other toyes, for funerall pompe. And first he sayeth, that George did not inuent beeres. For Epiphanius sayeth, he deui­sed to make the number of them certeine, and without those that he ordeined, no corps to be buryed, and all for lucres sake. Ep. H. 76. I neuer thought, that they carryed dead men on their neckes like beastes to the graue before Georges dayes, and therefore they had some kinde of comely carriage for them. But I sayed truely, that George inuented peculiar beeres, for lucres sake, as the Papistes vse their bearing clothes and like stuffe. Secondly he sayeth, I commend such ceremo­nies as are conuenient for laying vp of the corps. I do so: But superstitious beereclothes, and other ceremo­nies of poperie, so dearly payde for, are neither needfull nor conuenient.

Againe he asketh, whether I thinke it much, that the Church should reape their carnalia, to whome shee so­weth spiritualia? No verily: but I could neuer learn out of the scriptures, that bearing cloathes, crosses, candels, torches, &c. were such spiritualia, as the ministers of the Church ought to sowe. Last of all, where he asketh, whether I would prouide a beere and bearing cloathes against I be buryed, rather then to paye my dueties to [Page 38] my parish Church, hee declareth, that hee doth wil­fully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clo­thes, as though I denyed any thing that is comelye, when I speake against superstition and couetuous­nesse.

The seconde parte concerning the errors that hee layed (cap. 4.) to the fathers and not to vs. 1. Touching the heresies that Bristowe. were in their times.

He demaundeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies, that were in Fulke. the Apostles times, and the same Church in three Arrian Emperors times, with the heresie of Arrius? I answere that I neuer charged either the Apostles, or the faithfull members of the Church, or the true Church it selfe, with any heresies that were in their times. But aun­swering the demaunde Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath alwayes stoode still and stedfast, while all con­gregations of heretikes haue decayed: I say, The true Church of Christ hath alwayes stoode stedfast and inseparable from Christe her heade, when all heretikes haue beene and shall bee consounded, although shee haue not alwayes florished in worldly peace. For vntill the time of Constantine the great, the Church had small reste: And soone after vnder the Empe­rours Constantius, Constano, and Valens, it was greatly infected with the heresie of Arrius.

Where Bristowe falsifieth my wordes, reporting that I saye, The true Church was infected &c. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that professe Christianitie, as when I saye, the Church was persecuted by the hea­then Emperours, I meane all that woulde professe Christianitie, among whiche were manye heretikes that suffered persecution also. Lykewise when I say, the Church was infected, I meane the visible Church, in whiche are alwayes manye hypocrites, according to the parable of the nette and of the tares, &c. yea [Page 39] I doubt not but many of GODS electe, were infected with that heresie in those times, which after­warde repented and returned to the knowledge of the trueth: wherfore my meaning was nothing lesse, then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxie and true professi­on with the heresie of Arrius, or any other which it did openly detest and abhorre.

An other quarel he hath against me, where I saide, Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after y ^e Apostles times. In which place, after I had shewed what corruption of doctrine had beene receiued of y ^t greatest lights and pillers of the Church, from which it was not like, that most of y ^e inferior members could bee free: I conclude according to y ^e demand (which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelyhood, whē the true church did de­caie?) that it decayed immediately after y ^e Apostles times, meaning as y ^e demaunde serueth also, to vnderstande the word of decaying, when it began to decay, & not as Bri­stow cauilleth, whē it was vtterly decaied & came to no­thing, for such decaying I vtterly deny, y ^t euer it was, or euer shalbe. If we see some principall postes of an house, begin to putrifie, may wee not say, this building doth decaye? Or being asked when it decayed, after it is come to a more ruinous state, and yet standeth, may wee not aunswere, it decayed first, when such a beame or post began to put rifie? I doubt not but euery man of reaso­nable vnderstanding, wil acknowledge how folish these cauils are, which are taken of ambiguitie of words, and misconstruing of phrases cleane contrarie to my mea­ning, expressed in plaine euident tearmes, and hundreth times at least, in these my bookes, namely that the Church, although it be persecuted by tyrants, assaulted by heretikes, vndermined by hypocrites, enuyed and maligned by the diuell himselfe, yet the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it, to roote it out of the worlde, or to hinder the saluation of any one true member thereof.

[Page 40] Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, & S. Iustinus. Bristowe.

If these doctors haue erred (saith Bristow) in any thing, yet this thing is notable, that not so much as in any one Fulke. of their errors, they are of your side. A notable matter in deede, that we hold not so much as any one error, which they did hold. But you wil not say y ^e contrary, for shame, but that we hold many truthes which they helde. We re­sist (you say) their ful & whole consent. That is vtterly false, you haue not their ful & whole consent, for any point of popery: prayer for the deade is y ^e oldest error you haue, except the superstition of Angels and y ^e pharisaicall do­ctrine of iustification. Shew me the ful & whole consent of al the fathers for it, whose writings are extant, shewe me Iustinus, Irenaeus, Origenes, Cyprianus, Clemens A­lexandrinus, or any within 200. yeares after Christ (ex­cept Tertullian a Montanist) that in his writings main­taineth prayer for the deade.

But you will tell vs, whereto you papists ascribe in­fallible truth: First to the canonical scriptures & traditi­on of the Apostles, to y ^e decrees of Peter & his chayre, to the whole church, to y ^e consēt of fathers & councels, both generall and prouincial, confirmed by Peters successor. We know this wel inough, but I doe rehearse it in your owne termes, y ^t it may appeare you are not ashamed to match diuerse autorities equal in truth infallible, with the holy scriptures inspired of God, y ^t alone are able to instruct a man to saluation, and prepare him to euerie good worke. For these autorities, you vrge not onely where they agree with the scriptures, but also wher you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be vnperfect, as that they haue omitted any thing needeful to saluation, or the aduancement of Gods glorie in true religion.

The errors of y ^e fathers, we doe not reueale to their di­shonour, but to y ^e honour of God. Let God onely be true & euery man a lyer, yea Peter & Peters successor a thou­sand times. Whereas you take vpon you, to mitigate y ^e errors of the fathers, named in the title, you labour in [Page 41] [...]e: we know they erred not of malice, but being de­ [...]ued with similitude of trueth. But where you say, it [...]s no great matter for Irenaeus, Papius, and other to [...]ue erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts, vntill the Church had condemned peraduenture y ^t opinion in the heretiks called Mellenaries: you shewe what certeintie of trueth you haue out of y ^e scriptures, & yet you make it but a peraduenture, that the Church hath condemned that error. Last of all, where you say in excuse of y ^e error of Iustinus, concerning angels, that expresse mention is made Gen. 6. of the sinne of y ^e Angels, calling the transla­tion of the septuaginta authenticall, which translateth the Angels of God insteede of the sonnes of God, you geue great cause of suspicion that you are not cleare of that error your selfe.

3 Touching second mariages, and S. Hierom. Bristowe.

Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the Fulke. [...]me of Iustinus, was in some error about second marri­ [...]ges and diuorcement: Bristowe is angrie, that I haue no more to say: but it seemeth as though he would haue me [...]harge the man or the time with more thā I can mani­festly proue. But seing I quote no place for it, he dare say I haue it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe, and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centu­ries. As for the Centuries I dare say, I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together, or in partes. But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most aun­cient writers, my book of notes writtē with mine owne hande, more then 15. yeares past.

The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium, &c. where he hath these wordes: [...] ­ [...], As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marri­ages, are sinners by our maisters iudgement. I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some, and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages, but to wan­ton [Page 42] beholding of women: And therefore I doe not pre­cisely charge Iustinus. And yet againe I say it seemeth, that the Church in his time was in some error, because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher, that liued in a manner in the same time, doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium, a faire kinde of adultery. ‘ Qui namque repudiauerit, inquit &c. For hee that shall for­sake his wife (saith Christ) and marry another, doth com­mit adulterie: suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away, whose flower of virginitie he hath de­filed, nor to goe vnto seconde marriages. For he that de­priueth him selfe of his former wife (although after she is deade a diuorcement is made) is a secrete and couered adulterer, transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God. Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman, and dissoluing fleshe from flesh, y ^e vnion of commixtion instituted for y ^e par­ticipation of kinde and sexe, &c.’ And this seemeth to be the common error of his time, because he writeth this in that Apologie, which he made in defence of all Chri­stians, which it is not like he woulde present to the Em­peror, in the name of them all, except he had written that, which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time.

Concerning Hieronyme, Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error, when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe, not onelye against malicious enuiers, but also to­wardes Godly Bishoppes, and Christians. Apol. ad Pam­machium.

Where as I laye vnto Hierom, two other perilous As­sertions, whereof the one tendeth to destroye the huma­nitie of Christ, the other to giue diuinity to the mar­tyrs, where hee saith, ‘The soules of the martyrs, follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth: and thereof concludeth, If the Lambe be euery where, those also that are with the Lambe, must bee beleeued to bee euerie where.’

Bristowe aunswereth, that the sainctes are not euerie [Page 43] [...]here in personall presence. How then? But of such power [...]ey be, that they heare their suters in all places at once, and [...]n be personally present to heale & helpe whom they will. Euen [...]s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea­ [...]eth his suters in all places, and in personall presence assi­ [...]ed Saint Stephen, and whomsoeuer else hee will: I say accor­ding also to his humanitie &c. But what say you accor­ding to his humanitie, is hee euerie where? that is the question, and not of his power in hearing suters, or helping them. If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie, speake plainely, and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare. If you inter­prete euerie where for all power, how can you giue all power to the soules of Martyrs, which they ascribe onely to GOD and the Lambe? Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vnto the soules of Saintes, such power, that they heare the suters in all places at once &c: Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe, that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing, vnderstanding and helping. For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once, is a diuine priuiledge not communi­cable to any creature, that is not GOD. The ar­gument therefore of inuocation of sainctes, whiche you acompte to bee so stronge, without horrible blas­phemie, against the diuine nature, can neuer bee de­fended. The Sainctes followe the Lambe, not to bee of diuine nature, or equall power with him, but to bee partakers of his glorie, according to his grace, and the measure and capacitie of nature crea­ted.

Touching praying to the Sonne, and to the holy Bristowe. Ghoste.

Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the Fulke. error of the Church in any thinge, I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere, That the Councell of Carthage the 3. [Page 44] cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell, which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue, decreed, that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father, which is no small error, seeing that hereof it followeth, that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost, or to the blessed Trini­tie. What moued those fathers thus to decree, I know not: but certayne it is, the decree is erronius and of­fensiue. Bristowe cauelleth at my collections, as vnne­cessarie, that no prayers may bee directed but to the fa­ther, whereas my wordes haue relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off. Also that the verie prayers at the altar, may not be directed to the Sonne or to the ho­ly Ghost, because for orders sake, they are appointed to be directed to the father: I say, sauing the authoritie of the councell, which appointeth them to be directed to y ^e father alwaies, they may not, otherwise I doubt not but they may. And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne, to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum, & Petrum di­aconum, that the prayers, although they bee directed to the father, yet are made to the holy Trinitie, especial­ly because of the conclusion, which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost. And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same, I must put him in remembraunce, that in Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde &c: which is also sayde in his Masse, both the prayers is directed to God the sonne, & yet no conclusion there is, naming the father and the holy Ghost. Let Bristow therefore choose, whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage, or else acknowledge that y ^e Romishe Church doth erre, in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne, without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost.

5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes. Bristowe.

[Page 45] I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time & In­ [...]ocentius Fulke. him selfe Bishoppe of Rome, with this error, [...]at they did not onely minister the communion to in­ [...]ntes, contrary to the doctrin of the Apostle, Let a man [...]xamine himselfe &c: but also, that they thought it ne­ [...]ssarie for them in paine of damnation, to receiue the [...]ommunion, which error I supposed the papistes them [...]lues woulde not defend. Heere first Bristowe accu­ [...]eth my boldnesse, in that I affirme the Papistes will not [...]efende this error: and secondly my wilfull ignorance, [...]hat I neuer redde the councell of Trent, wherein it is [...]eclared that they doe defend it, with an admonition to his coūtrie men what blind guids they haue of me and such as I am &c. Concerning the boldenesse, I desire [...]ardon of the Papistes, if I thought not so euell of thē [...]s they deserue: And touching my wilfull ignorance [...]nd blindnesse, I must needes vse the prouerbe; Who [...]s so bolde as blinde Bayarde? Bristowe, which so con­ [...]tantly affirmeth, that it was not possible for him to [...]nowe: Fulke neuer redde the councell of Trent, and that i [...] [...]tterly false, for as I knowe I haue redde it, so suppose [...] haue redd it before Bristowe. But admitte I had ne­ [...]er seene, the report of that 5. session vnder Pius the 4. which was helde the 16. day of Iuly 1562, are all blinde guides that neuer sawe that session? O waightie censure of a proude papist, whiche by a fault called of the Greekes [...], thinketh that to bee the highest point of learning, which he hath learned latest! But what if the councell of Trent doe not onely acknowledge it to bee an error, but also doe anathematise all them that holde the contrarie? Then haue I not slaunde­red the Papistes, but Bristowe hath slaundered mee. The verie wordes cited by Bristowe out of the 4. Cap. shewe that the Papistes helde it for an error, that it is necessarie for infantes to receiue the communion: That infantes lacking the vse of reason, are by no necessitie bound to the sacramentall receiuing of the Eucharist. Also the fourth Canon of the same session, thundereth out anathema, against them, that say otherwise. ‘ Si [Page 46] quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervene­rint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem, Anathema sit: If any man shall say, that the communion of the Eu­charist, is necessarie for infants, before they come to the yeares of discretion, let him be accursed.’ But the same councel in the Chapter by Bristow cited, affirmeth, that Antiquitie is not to be condemned, if it practised that maner, sometime, in some places, and that without con­trouersie it must be beleeued, that they did it not, for a­nie necessitie of saluation. And this declaration (saith Bristow) may suffice not onely all Catholikes, to whō it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself, but also any other reasonable man. Indeede if any resonable man, wil be satisfied with such a grosse ledging of y ^e whole mat­ter in controuersie, it is a good satisfaction. The councel of Trent saith so, therefore although Augustine, Pope Innocentius, & other witnesses of antiquitie say the cō ­trary, of themselues, yet we must not beleue them. That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of y ^e coū ­cell of Trent, it is a great argument, & such as Bristowe often vseth, that it is no error. Kemnitius if he had beene as quicke eyed as Bernard, yet saw not all things, neither was he bound to confute all errors that he sawe. But for further satisfaction of all men, Bristow will open y ^e case particularly, which is this in effect: The Pelagians af­firmed, that children without baptisme, should haue e­uerlasting life, although not in the kingdome of God. Wherevnto the Catholikes replied, they could not haue eternall life, except they did eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his bloud in the cōmunion: but the communion they could not receiue, before they were baptised, there­fore without baptisme, they could not haue eternal life. Now Bristowe putting the case, that a childe were bap­tised, and then immediately dyed before he receyued sa­cramentally the Eucharist, demandeth, whether the fa­ther granting to such a childe by force of baptisme re­mission of sinnes, do not also allowe him eternall life and the kingdome of God. And let any man (saith he) bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case & holding the [Page 47] contrarie. I aunswere, seeing they vsed immediately after [...]aptisme, to communicat the infant, y ^e case that Bristow [...]utteth, is too rare, to happen in 500 yeres that any que­ [...]ion might grow vpon it. But what their opinion was, [...]f the necessitie of the one sacrament, as much as the o­ [...]her, it is easie to proue both by their argument, which Bristow confesseth they vsed, & also by their own words, whatsoeuer the blind guides of the Tridentine councel [...]ay in their defence. They brought in y ^e Eucharist (saith Bristow) onely to proue that baptisme is necessary to the euerlasting life of children. Verie well: but what force [...]n the worlde hath that argument of the Euchariste, for the necessitie of baptisme, if the Eucharist also bee not necessarie for children? For the Pelagians might reply, that if the Euchariste be not necessarie, no more is bap­tisme for the atteyning of eternal life. But those fathers labored to prooue the necessitie of baptisme for infants, by the necessitie of the Euchariste for infantes: And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine. As cont. Iul. [...]ib. 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome, ‘ Qui parvulos &c. which hath defined that infantes except, they eate the flesh of the son of man can haue no life at all in thē.’ And there he meaneth of eating sacra­mētally: as his owne words cited by Augustine declare, Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia: ‘ Nónne apertis­simè de parvulis loquitur? Haec enim ejus verba sunt &c. Doth he not most manifestly speake of infantes? For these are his owne wordes: Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asse­rit, praedicare &c. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach, that infants, may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life, euen without the grace of baptisme, it is a verie foolish thing. For excepte they shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, they shall haue no life in themselues. But they which defend thē to haue this life without regeneratiō, seeme to me that they would make frustrate baptisme it selfe, when they preach them to haue that which we be­leue is not to be conferred vpon them but by baptisme [Page 48] &c. And within fewe lines after Augustine saith: Ecce beatae memoriae &c.’ Beholde Pope Innocentius of bles­sed memorie saith: that infantes haue not life, without the baptisme of Christ and without participa­tion of the body and bloud of Christ. Agayne, lib. 1. Cap. 2. hee speaketh against the Pelagians, which gran­ted that baptisme was necessarie for infantes, to attaine to the kingdome of heauen, but not for remission of sinnes. ‘ Nec illud cogitatis &c. Neither doe you consider this, that they cannot haue life, which are expertes with­out part of the body and bloude of Christ, seeing hee sayth himselfe: Except you shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude, you shall haue no life in you.’

Agayne, ‘ Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelli­geretis, crederetis quare dixerit Dominus: Non opus est san [...] medicus &c. If you did vnderstande, you woulde be­leeue wherefore our Lorde saide, The whole neede not the Phisition, but they that are sicke: you would be­leeue truely, that they are not whole, but wounded, which are offered to be healed to our sauiour y ^e Phisiti­on, at the station of Baptisme: and that they shoulde not haue life, except they eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of him which is life. For he him selfe hath said, Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, you shal not haue eternall life in you, and hee which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life. Howe therefore doe you promise the life of the kingdome of heauen to infantes, not borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, Non ciba­tis carne atque non potatis, not fedd with the flesh of Christ and which haue not dronke the bloud of Christ, which is shedde for the remission of sinnes? For it is his decree: If any man bee not borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdome of hea­uen. For to enter into the kingdome of heauen is none other thing, but to liue in a blessed life which remay­neth for euer and euer. Beholde hee which is not bapti­sed and he also which is depriued of the vital meate and cup, is diuided from the kingdome of heauen &c. To [Page 49] the like effecte hee writeth, Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus &c. If reconciliation by Christ be necessarie, for all men, sinne hath passed o­ouer all men, by which wee were enimies, that we haue neede of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the lauer of regeneration, and in the body and bloude of Christ, without the which, no not infantes can haue life in themselues.’

Also Contra Iulian, lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his pietie, that infantes shoulde be damned for not doing that which they coulde not doe, he addeth, ‘ Vbi etiam ponis &c. where also wilt thou place them, because they shall lacke life, seeing they haue not eaten the flesh of the Sonne of mā, nor drunke his bloude?’

Also de peccatorū meritis & remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristowe but mingled with many intersecti­ons of his owne, as his maner is. After Augustine hath rehearsed the text, Ioan. 6. Except ye eate &c: hee addeth ‘ Quid vltrà querimus? &c. What seeke wee further? What can they aunswere to this, except stubbornes doe stretch their striuing sinowes against the constancie of the ma­nifest trueth? Or dare any man say this also, that this sentence pertayneth not to infantes, and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud, haue life in them &c?’ Likewise cap. 24. he saith, ‘ Optimè Puni­ci &c. Best of all, y ^e Christians of Africa, do call baptisme it selfe nothing else but health, and the sacrament of the body of Christ, nothing else but life: Whence, but of an auncient (as I thinke) and apostolike tradition by which they holde it ingrafted vnto the Church of Christ, that without baptisme and participation of the Lordes table, no man at all can come, not onely, not to the kingdome of God, but neither to health & life euerlasting? For this also the scripture testifieth accor­ding to those thinges which wee haue sayde before. For what other thing doe they holde, which call baptisme by the name of health, but that which is sayde, hee hath saued vs by y ^e lauer of regeneration, and that which Peter saith, so also doeth baptisme in like manner saue [Page 50] you? What other thing also doe they holde which call the sacrament of our Lordes table, life, but that which is saide, I am the breade of life, which came downe from heauen: and the breade which I will giue, is my fleshe, for the life of the worlde: And except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, ye shall haue no life in you? If therefore as so many and so greate testimonies of GOD doe consent, that neither health nor life eternall without baptisme, and the body and bloud of our Lord is to be hoped to any body, in vaine without these is it promised to Infantes. Furthermore, if from health and life eternall, nothing but sinnes do separate, by these sacramentes, nothing but the guilt of sinne is loosed in infantes.’

These places of Augustine I haue rehearsed the more at large, that the impudencie of the councell of Trent and of their poore patrone Bristowe, might ap­peare, whiche would excuse the errour of the aunci­ent Churche, and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times, in saying that albeit they vsed to minister the communion to infantes, yet they did it not for any necessitie to saluation: whereas the contrary by so many places, and more then I haue rehearsed, doth most mani­festly appeare.

As for the practise whiche he confesseth of giuing that sacrament to infantes, he saith is not against Pro­bet seipsum, &c. Let a man examine himselfe, &c. Be­cause that infantes may examine them selues by o­thers, (whiche is a monstrous kinde of speache) as well as beleeue and repent by others. Here is one er­rour of Augustine defended by an other of his: for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men, but because they are comprehended within the co­venant of GOD, to whome baptisme is no more to be denied, then circumcision was to the infantes of the Iewes. The Prophet sayeth, Iustus &c. The righteous man shall liue by his owne faith.

It is not the faith of other men that can procure [Page 51] life vnto vs. Neither is faith required of infantes, before they can heare the worde of God, which is the onely ordinary meanes by whiche faith commeth. But infantes (sayeth Bristowe) bee in no mortall sinnes, being newely baptized, and therefore they neede no examination for feare least they should come vn­worthily. Saint Augustine confesseth that hee was in mortall sinne, euen in his infancie: Imbecillitas mem­brorum infantium innocens est, non animus infantium: The weakenesse of the members of infantes is innocent, not the minde of infantes. Afterwarde hee bringeth examples of enuie euen in an infant, and at last con­cludeth: ‘ Quod si, &c. And if it be so that I was con­ceyued in iniquitie, and that in sinnes my mother in her wombe nourished me; where I beseech thee my GOD, when LORDE was I thy seruant, where or when was I innocent? By this you see, there is no shorte time of mans life free from sinne.’ Neither may you cavill, that Augustine was not baptised in his infancie, seeing he speaketh generally of the con­dition of all infantes, which is not chaunged by bap­tisme, although sinne be not imputed vnto them.

Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme, that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme, is abolished in baptisme; what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of bap­tisme, be angry with them that haue taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme? is this no sinne? But what infant can examine him­selfe of this sinne? And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will haue to examine himselfe? As for the distinction of Votum explicitum & implicitum, he sendeth vs to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. &c.

For how can we be assured, that children haue a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion? Or how can it be proued, That they haue any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes? If [...] be lawful to imagine of infantes, against all reason, [Page 52] and without all scriptures, wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable. Last of all, hee chargeth mee, with falsification by adding, because the councell of Trent saith, that manner was aliquan­do in quibusdam locis, some times and in some places. But I pray thee Bristowe, what haue I falsified? the coun­cel of Trent, which thou affirmest that I did neuer read? Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes, were not so many, as Fulke doeth make them. Why, howe many doe I make them? I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augu­stines time, were in this error, that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ, was to bee ministred to infantes. And haue I not playnely, and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine? where is then this falsification? If I had not prooued that which I sayde, yet there is difference betwixt falsifica­tion, and a false affirmation. And because the Tridentine councell sayth, it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued, it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme, and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after. Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli. de Coron. mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius, and Lotharius and after: citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised. Si Epi­scopus &c. If the Bishop be present, it must bee immedi­ately confirmed and then communicated. If the Bishop bee not present, before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing, let the Prieste giue him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST, yea before the Masse, if necessitie require. By this Testimonie it appeareth not onely that this custome was long obserued, but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie, so that masse should not be taried for, if the infant were in any danger.

[Page 53] Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes, and not of olde, and 1. touching the bodies of Angels. Bristowe.

According to the demaunde of the challenger, Fulke. which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church, to bee shewed him, I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors, which are not the matters in contro­uersie betweene vs, but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent, they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors. Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply, and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church, but those which I note vpon such occasion, willeth all them that would know the true Church, to consider that these errors (if they bee any) are so fewe and so light, that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes, and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time, no lesse then of olde time, considering it is no lesse, but much more vnreproueable of y ^e aduersarie. Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme, they are sufficient if they were but one, to proue y ^t which I intend: namely that the Popishe Church hath erred, which being pro­ued the surest piller of Poperie is broken, and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures, & the true Church of God, when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred, will shewe them­selues to bee errors, which had nothing else to gayne them credite, but this one false principle That the Po­pishe Church can not erre.

And touching the bodies of Angels, where I say, Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that An­gels and soules of men had bodies, were visible and cir­cumscriptible, and therefore must bee paynted, affir­ming this to be y ^e iudgement of the Catholike Church: Bristowe answereth, that I misreport the matter, for it is not the councells determination, nor saying, but the saying onely of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica, re­hearsed in the councell, with an admonition giuen by [Page 54] Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that o­uerthrew the images of our Lorde & his vndefiled mo­ther, seeing this holy father doth shew, that Angels also may be painted. But the trueth is (as may apeare to eue­ry man that wil read the Councel, act. 5) that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter. After y ^e say­ing of Ioannes is rehearsed, in which this grosse error is conteined, Tharasius the archb. of Const. thereupon con­cludeth: ‘ Ostendit autem pater, quòd & angelos pingore opor­teat quando circumscribi possunt, & vt homines apparuerunt. This father sheweth, that we ought to paint the angels also, seeing they may be circumscribed, & haue appeared as men’: by which it is manifest, that Tharasius appro­ueth the opinion of Ioannes. Would you now haue the determination of y ^e Councel? It followeth immediatly, ‘ Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine: The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde.’ By this it is manifest, that not I, but Bristow hath misreported the matter. Where I sayde (If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites haue bodies visible and circumscriptible, there was neuer any errour since the world began:) Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith, Soft man, other manner of errours haue beene defended since the world began. I wot well, & greater, but if any of them be a manifest errour, this is as manifest as any of them all. Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this er­ror, that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it, Basilius. Athanasius, Me­thodius, yea, Augustine (he sayeth) make a question of it. In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice. For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers, sounding to such a purpose, it onely by mistaking the worde [...] or corpus, which they vsed generally, for that which nowe in the schooles (according to Aristotle) is called [...] or substantia, sub­stance comprehending both bodies and spirits, not that euer they thought that angels, spirites & soules of men had visible and circumscriptible bodyes, such as may be set forth by painting, or such as the bodies of men & [Page 55] beastes are, or that they consisted either of ayery of fy­ery matter, as that blynd Bishopp so imagined out of that verse of the Psalme. 104. He maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fyer. Last of all he sayeth there is no determination of the Church to con­demne the assertion as heretical, thoughe there be suf­ficient to count it temerarious & erronious: whither it be hereticall, I will not nowe dispute, seeing by Bri­stowe it is granted to be an errour, & I haue sufficiently proued, that it was mainteined by the whole Coun­cell, which was as much as I required for that point.

2 Touching the Popes superioritie ouer the Councell.

The determinations of the Pope and of the generall Bristowe. Fulke. Councell, being accompted among the Papistes, as the rules of trueth, I sayde are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them, which of them is superior to other, the Pope ouer the Councell, or the Councell ouer the Pope, & that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certeintie of trueth in either of them. To this Bristow answereth, that he thinketh him selfe able to satisfie me or any other reasonable man, if he saith, that then we are in a right beliefe, when we hold those determinations that are the determinatiōs iointly both of the Pope & of the Councel, as those of Trent. But he is gretly deceiued, for while it is in doubt, whether may erre, & ech part chargeth other with erring, it may be, & there is none other likelyhod to the contrary but y ^t they do both erre, so y ^t neither I, nor any other reasonable mā may safely tye our faith to any of their determinatiōs. For they wherof either part may err, being seuered, may also erre, but when they are ioyned together, you will say the Councels determination is vncerteine, except it be cōfirmed by y ^e Pope. But if y ^e Pope also may erre, how is it made certein by his confirmation? Another wil say, the Popes determination is vncerteine, except the gene­ral councel giue consent & approbation therto. But if y ^e general councel may err, what certeintie is in y ^e appro­batiō therof? So y ^e doubt is as great as it was before, wher Brist. affirmeth y ^t no man wil bind vs to beliue y ^e determi­natiōs of any Councel y ^t are not certeinly cōfirmed by y ^e [Page 56] Pope: he sayeth more then he is able to warrant: for beside that D. Cole in his answere to the Bishop of Sa­rum manifestly defendeth the authoritie of the coun­cels against the Pope, many popish diuines were and are of that opinion, that the Pope may erre, and is vnder the authoritie of the councell.

But where I shewe a manifest errour in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and ap­prouing one of another, of the Pope and the councell: Bristowe sayeth, the matter is not so vncerteine amon­gest them, as I make it. For first he graunteth, that the councell of Ferrara and Florence, determined that the Pope was aboue the councell, and that the councell might erre, and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same iudgement. He graunteth also that the councels of Constance and Basil determined the contradictorie, namely that the councell was aboue the Pope, and that the Pope may erre. But where I sayde, that Martinus quintus, chosen Pope by the councell of Constance, was of the same iudgement, there he cryeth, hoe, you proue not that, nor neuer shall proue. No shal, Maister Bristow? why sir, is it like, that the councell which had deposed three Popes, would choose a fourth man Pope, that was of a contrary iudgement vnto them? Yea, how coulde he accept the Papacie, beeing not voide, if the councell had not authoritie to depose the Pope, whosoeuer hee was of the three, that was the right Pope. But seeing Iohn the 23. was of the Emperour and the councell ac­counted the right Pope, who also before his deposition, affirmed that the councell of Constance was a most ho­ly councell and could not erre: it is manifest, that this Martyn beeing a Cardinall, consented to the depo­sition of Iohn the 23. session. 12. therefore he was of the same iudgement that the councell was. But if you would saye, that as soone as he was made Pope, the spi­rite of Peter comming vpon him, he was soudenly chan­ged into a contrary iudgement: his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you, where you saye, that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassadour, he confirmed [Page 57] [...]ose determinations alone of the councel of Constāce which were [...]ainst the errours of Wickeliefe, Hus, and Hierom of Prage. [...]or he did so generally confirme all decrees of that [...]uncell, that he commaunded it to be enquired of per­sons suspected, in articles as followeth: ‘ Item vtrum credat, teneat & asserat, quòd quodlibet concilium generale, & [...]am Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentet. Item, whether he beleeue, holde and affirme, that euery ge­nerall councell, and namely the councell of Constance doeth represent the vniuersall churche.’ If Martyn the 5. would haue euery man to beleeue that the coun­cell of Constance representeth the vniuersall church, he would also haue them beleeue that the councell of Constance cannot erre, which councel condemned the Pope of heresie, and deposed him of his Papacye. Again, another Article: ‘ Item vtrum credat quòd illud quod sacrum concilium Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentans, [...]probauit & approbat, in fauor em fidei & ad salutem anima­ [...]m quod hoc est ab vniuersis Christi fidelibus approbandum & [...]endum. Et quid condemnauit & condemnat, esse fidei vel [...]nis moribus contrarium, hoc ab iisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato, credendum & asserendum. Also, whether hee beleeueth, that that which the holy councell of Con­stance, representing the vniuersall Church, hath appro­ued and doth approue in fauour of the faith, to the health of mens soules, that the same is of all faithfull Christians to be approued and holden. And that which it hath condemned and doth condemne, to be contrary to faith or good manners, that the same is of them to be holden beleeued and affirmed as a thing condem­ned.’ But the councell of Constance approued this as­sertion, that the councell cannot erre, and that the coun­cell is aboue the Pope to condemne him of error, which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith, & the health of mens soules, therefore Pope Martyn the 5. was of the iudgement of the councell of Constance. Finally in the end of the councell of Constance the approbati­on of Pope Martyn is recorded of all things decreede [...]nd determined in matters of faith: Among which wee [Page 58] must needes account this question of the Popes erring, and the councels not erring, which is accompted so ne­cessarie an article of faith, that the Papistes striue for no­thing so much at this daye, as for that which was there condemned by the Councell. ‘ Quibus sic factis sanctissi­mus dominus noster Papa respondendo ad praedicta, quòd omnia & singula, determinata, conclusa & decreta in materiis fidci per praesent concilium conciliariter tenere & inuiolabiliter seru [...] volebat, & nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipsáque sic con­ciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter nec alio mo­do. Const. Sess. 45. which things being so done, our mo [...]te holy lorde the Pope sayde, answering to the foresayde things, that he would holde and keepe inuiolable all and singular things, determined, concluded, and decreede in matters of faith, by the present Councell in fourme of Councell: and that he would neuer go against them by any meanes. And the same things so done in forme of Councell, he approueth and ratifyeth, and not other­wise nor after any other manner.’ Nowe it is certeine that nothing was done or decreede more Councellike, then that solemne canon, That the Councel is aboue the Pope, and hath authoritie to depose the Pope, which Pope Iohn 23. confirmed and confessed, that the Coun­cell could not erre, &c. And therefore it is vtterly false, that Pope Martin confirmed those determinations a­lone, which were against the errours of Wicliff. Hus, & Hieronym, at the petition of the Polonian Am [...] assa­dour, as Bristowe sayth. For the request was made vnto the Pope, not by one Ambassadour, but by diuerse, and them not from the king of Polonia onely, but also from the duke of Lituania, that a certeine booke of one fryer Iohn Falkenberge, conteining notable heresies (as they said) & condemned by the deputies of the Councel, &c. might be condemned in an open session of the Councel, & so pronounced before the Councel were dissolued: o­therwise they protested in y ^t name of their princes, that they susteined grieuance, & would appeale vnto the next Councell, vnto whom the Pope answered as before ge­nerally, that whatsoeuer was decreed by the Councel in fourme of a Councell, concerning matter of faith, he did [Page 59] [...]owe and woulde obserue, and according to a decre of [...]e same councell, calleth another councell to follow a [...]apia &c. shewing therein not onely his iudgement, but [...]lso his obedience to the decree of the Councel. Concer­ [...]ing Nicolaus 5. (Bristow saith) he did but onely ratifie [...]e collations of benefices and such like things done in [...]e Councell of Basil. Herevnto I aunswere the wordes [...]re so generall in that Bull of approbation of thinges c­ [...]acted and done in the councell of Basil by Pope Nico­ [...]as, as they may containe all manner of decrees of the same Councell. ‘ Omnia & singula tam iustitiam &c. all & euery thing concerning as well iustice as grace, in per­sons or places, which in time of the grauntes and other the premisses obeyed our foresaide reuerende and wel­beloued brother Amadeus Cardinall, Bishop, Legat, and Vicar aforesaid, then called Felix the fift and the congre­gated aforesaide or either of them, as well by the Coun­cell of Basil which then was, and Amadeus in his obedi­ence called Felix the fifte, as also them which in the ci­ties of Basil and Lausanna, remained congregated vnder the name of a generall councell; or any other or others by his or either of their authoritie yea legates de latere, delegates or any other whomsoeuer, frō thē or either of them, hauing power ioyntly or seuerally,) howe soeuer done, performed, granted, giuen, indulted, disposed & or­deined, although they be greter & weightier matters, or of any other nature whatsoeuer frō y ^e premises, & such as require to be specially expressed, which we wil & decree to be accōpted as if they were specially expressed w ^t all things therof following And also al & euery thing don by y ^e ordinaries in y ^e same places, for y ^e benefite of peace & vnity of y ^e church of our own motion, of our certain kno­ledg & of y ^e fulnes of y ^e apostolike power, by y ^e councell & assent of our reuerende brethren the Cardinals of y ^e holy church of R. by tenor of these present; we approue rati­fie & also confirm, & wil haue to be taken for ratified & cōfirmed.’ Here you se al & euery thing done & ordeined in the Councell of Basil whatsoeuer they be, expressed, or not expressed, confirmed and ratified by the Bull of Pope Nicholas the 5. And in the Councell of Basil, the [Page 60] councell of Constance, and especially that decree of the superioritie of the councell aboue the Pope, was de­creed, & pope Eugenius, for his contumacie was depo­sed and another elected, all whose actes also pope Ni­colas confirmeth and ratifieth.

Likewise where as Bristowe saith that Pope Eugenius [...]he 4. did no more but declare that the councell of Basil from the beginning to a certaine time was a lawfull councell and lawfully continuated: The truth is, hee did both by his owne Buls and by his owne deputies a great deale more then Bri­stow confesseth: and euen by this that he confesseth, it is easie to proue that Eugenius graunted the councel to be aboue the pope. For Eugenius had done what he coulde to dissolue the councell of Basil, and sent out three buls for the same purpose, notwithstanding the councell was continued by authoritie of the councell against his de­crees: wherfore seeing he declared, (as Bristowe confes­seth) that the councell was lawfully continued, contrary to his decrees (which he was compelled to reuoke) he declared that the councell was aboue the pope, and had authoritie to controll him and his decrees. And that he did more then Bristowe saith he did: It is manifest in the recorde of the councell, session 16. That Eugenius de­clared the councell of Basill to be lawfull and lawfully continued vntill Anno dom. 1433. 18. Cal. Ian. reuoking three bulles by which he had taken vpon him before to dissolue the same councell, in which bulles hee com­plained that the councell vsurped autoritie aboue the pope. Afterwarde sess. 17. Anno. 1434. 24. of April. being Saturday, the Popes legates were incorporated into the councell of Basil, being sworne to defende the councell, and by speciall words, the decree of the councel of Con­stance Sessi. 4. by which the councell is decreed to be a­boue the Pope, and the Pope bound to obey the coun­cell and the decrees thereof. And 6. Cal. Maij. The praesi­dents of pope Eugenius were admitted with these con­ditions vnder written: Videlicet sine omni iurisdictione co­actiuo, saluo etiam modo procedendi in hoc sacro concilio hacte­nus obseruato, That is to say, without all iurisdiction of [Page 61] compelling, also hauing the manner of proceeding he­ [...]herto obserued in this holy councell. By this you see, [...]hat pope Eugenius did not onely declare the councell [...] be lawfully continued, but also he declared his owne [...]rror in reuoking of his bulles of dissolution. Also by [...]is legates he sware to defend the councel and to keepe [...]he decree of the councel of Constance, sessi. 4. which was [...]ade against the Popes superioritie ouer the councell. And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such pre­ [...]idency as the councell woulde graunt, without all iu­ [...]isdiction of compulsion, being himselfe compelled to [...]taine y ^t order of proceeding which the councell before [...]is presidencie was admitted, had obserued. What Leo [...]he tenth in his Laterane councell decreed against the [...]ouncell of Basil, I haue nothing to doe with it, except [...] be to proue that one pope going against the decrees of [...]nother pope, and one councell against another, that [...]either of both is to be credited. Howe childish my in­ [...]ultation is, howe voide of victorie my triumph, howe [...]nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are, as Bristow scof­ [...]eth, I leaue to all reasonable men to consider.

3. Touching the Constance councels presumption. Bristowe

I sayd it was horrible praesumption, that the councell Fulke. of Constance decreede contrarie to the worde of God in plaine wordes: That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sa­crament to bee receiued in both kindes, and that the faithfull in the primitiue Church did so receiue it: yet the custome of the Church of Rome shall preuaile, and whosoeuer saith contrarie it [...]an heretike. These wordes he saith I print (as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed) in a distincte letter as the plaine wordes of the councell, whereas these are not the wordes of the councell. Heere is the quarell. No sir, I neuer ment to print these wordes as the wordes of the councell, but as the summe and contente of them, which because they were large I woulde not set downe at large in a bymatter. But now being urged with falsification [Page 62] or at least false collectiō. I wil set thē down as they a [...] Cō. Const sess [...]. 13. w ^tout any such interruptions as is vs [...]al w ^t you to make, y ^t you might carie away y ^e simple readen mind from y ^e true sense of thē. ‘ Cùm in nonnullis &c. wher­as in certaine partes of the worlde, certeine parsons pre­sume rashly to affirme. y ^t Christian people ought to re­ceiue y ^e sacrament of y ^t Euchariste, vnder both kindes o [...] bread & wine, & do communicate the lay people euerie where, not onely vnder y ^e kind of bread, but also vnder [...] kinde of wine, yea after supper, or otherwise not fasting, and stubbernely affirme y ^t they ought so to be commu­nicated against the laudable custome of y ^e church resona­bly approued, which as sacrilegious damnably they goe about to reproue: hereof it is that this present holy ge­nerall councell of Constance, lawfully gathered toge­ther in y ^e holyghost, entending to prouide for the salua­tion of y ^e faithfull against this error, hauing had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the lawe of god and of man, declareth, decreeth, & defineth, that al­though Christ after supper did institute, & minister vnto his disciples this holy sacrament vnder both kindes of bread & wine, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable au­thoritie of holy Canons & the approued custome of the Church hath obserued & doth obserue, y ^t this sacrament ought not to be made after supper, neither to be receiued of y ^e faithful not fasting, but in case of sicknesse or other necessitie of right or of y ^e Church graunted or admitted. And as this custome to auoide certeine daungers and of­fences is reasonably brought in, that although in y ^e pri­mitiue church, this sacrament was receiued of y ^e faithfull vnder both kinds, & afterward of thē which make it, it is receiued vnder both kinds, & of y ^e lay people only vnder y ^e kind of bread; seeing it ought most stedfastly to be be­leeued & by no meanes to be doubted, but y ^t the whole bodie and bloud of Christ is truly cōtained as wel vnder y ^e kind of bread, as vnder y ^e kind of wine. Whervpō seeing such a custome by y ^e church & holy fathers is reasonably brought in, & hath beene very long obserued, it must be takē for a law which it is not lawful to reproue, or with [Page 63] out y ^e authority of y ^e church to change at mens pleasure. [...]herfore to say, y ^t to keep this custom or law is sacrilege [...] vnlawfull, it ought to be iudged erroneous: and they [...]hich stubbernly affirme the contrary of y ^e premisses, are [...] be driuen away as heretiks, & to be greuosly punished [...]y y ^t dyocessanes of y ^e places or their officials, or by the in­ [...]uisitor of heretical prauity, in those kingdomes or pro­ [...]inces, in which any thing perhaps shalbe attempted or [...]resumed against this decree, according to y ^e Canonicall [...]nd lawful functions which haue ben solemnly invēted [...] fauour of the Catholike faith against heretikes and [...]heir fautors.’ Here you see y ^e prelates of the councel take [...]pon thē as great authority in altering y ^e matter of y ^e sa­ [...]rament, which is a necessarie part of y ^e institutiō therof, [...]s in ordering y ^e time in which it shalbe ministred, which [...]s no part of y ^e institution therof. Also y ^t they confes that [...]n y ^e primitiue church y ^e sacrament was receiued in both [...]inds, therfore they are presūptuous to say hoc nō obstāte, [...]his notw ^tstāding, y ^e custome of later yeares brought in [...]s reasonable & shalbe obserued as a law, the gainsayers [...]herof being cōdēned & punished as heretikes. Brist. ca­ [...]illeth, y ^t they say not y ^e custome of y ^e church of Rome, as I said: As though, whē they speake of the custome of the church, they meane any other church but y ^e church of R. Such bables B. hath to couer their blasphemous & sacri­ [...]legious presumption.

Touching certain false interpretations of scripture. Bristowe. Fulke.

To color y ^e false interpretatiōs folowing, he cōmēdeth y ^e sayings of August. de doct. Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. & lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth euery mā principally to shoote at y ^t sense of y ^e writer in expositiō of y ^e scripture, but if he misse y ^t sense & hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith, or is profitable to build charity towards god & our neighbor, he is not perniciously deceiued &c. Vpō this Allen in his offer to y ^t protestāt saith, Ar. 86. & 87. Let any man proue vnto me, that the true & only church of god may falsely interprete any sentence of holy scripture, & I recant. This generall offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye, or wilfully lying, as is contei­ned in Saint Augustines sayinges, vnto whiche [Page 64] Bristowe woulde nowe seeme to make relation, I did accept. And first I proued that pope Innocent with S. Au­gustine and all the Westerne Church did falsely inter­prete this scripture Ioan. 6. Except ye eate &c. and that to maintaine a false opinion of the necessitie of the com­munion for all persons, and euen infantes, that should haue life euerlasting, and therefore repugnant to right faith, as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter.

Secondly I noted diuerse places of scripture, not one­ly falsely but also ridiculously expoūded, in the second councell of Nice, to maintaine idolatrie against the ex­presse commaundement of God, and therefore contrary to the right faith and the loue of God. Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith, that they are not the in­terpretations of the councell (whose interpretation they are not bounde to defende, but onely their definitions) but they are the interpretations of particular persons. To this I answere, they are contained in y ^e synodal book sent into the Westerne Churches, to stirre them vp to idolatrie (which booke was aunswered by Carolus Mag­nus or by Alcuinus at his commaundement, and in his name) therefore they are approued by the councell, yea some of them are contained also in that report of the councell, which is set downe in the bookes of councels. The text of lighting a candell, and putting it vnder a bushel, is affirmed of Bristowe to be well applyed in the Epistle of Constantinus, & his mother to the synod. But he is deceiued. For there is no argument of setting of i­mages vpon the altar drawne out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal aboue rehearsed, confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus.

The seconde text, God made man according to his image: therefore we must haue images in the Church: Bristowe confesseth to bee contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperour. But the same is approued in the councell, and is the popes Epistle, whose credit is greater with you than the councels. But he doth not conclude (you say) that therfore we must haue images in the Church. What then? forsooth that a [...] Adam being [Page 65] the image of God is to be honoured, so euery image is holy that i [...] made in the name of God, be it an image of Angels, prophets, A­postles, martyrs or iust persons. This conclusion conteineth more thē I vrged, namely y ^e worshiping of images, & not the making of thē only. And because you are so impudēt to say, it is not the coūcel, but pope Adrianus that so saith &c: I wil let the reader vnderstand, that in the seconde action, there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian, reade in the sy­node, one to the Emperours, the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople. Afterward Peter and Pe­ters liuetenants of the Pope, required Tharasius to de­clare, whether he cōsented to y ^e Popes letters or no. Tha­rasius answered, that concerning the worshiping of ima­ges, he did allow the Popes letters. Thē said the Synod, ‘ Vniuersa sancta Synodus &c. The whole holy synod doth so beleeue and teach. Peter and Peters Legates of the sea Aposto like saide: Let the holy synode tell vs, whether it receiue y ^e letters of y ^e most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synode aunswered: we follow them, we receiue them, and allowe them.’

The 3. text (As we haue heard, so we haue seene in y ^e citie of our God. ps. 48. to proue y ^t God must not be knowne by onely hearing of his word, but also by sight of ima­ges:) Bristowe affirmeth that it is not the councell that citeth it, but a Deacon called Epiphanius, which readeth it to the councell out of a booke of his owne: I answere hee readeth it with approbation and good liking of the councell, which in effect is al one. But he citeth it not (saith Bristowe) to shew how God must be knowne, but about the storie of Christs manhoode, nor to proue im­mediately, y ^t the said story must be painted &c. as though God can be knowne but by Christ, for knowledge of whom, by imagery, he cyteth this text of the Canticle also, Can. 2. shew me thy face, & let me heare thy voyce. And whether it be immediately, or mediately, certain it is, y ^t he citeth this text, Pal. 48. to proue, y ^t the pictures of saincts are rightly deliuered in the Church, none other­wise, then the reading of the holy gospel.

The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense, & falsified in [Page 66] words is Ioan. 10. ver. 29. My father which gaue them vnto me (speaking of his sheep) is greater then al. Which text in the Councell of Lateran, holden vnder Pope In­nocent the thirde, is falsified in words after this manner. Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus. That whiche the father hath giuen me is greater then all: and inter­preted to proue the eternall begetting of Christ of the substance of his father. To this Bristow aunswereth her [...] is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense. What sense Allen hath of false interpretation, I knowe not, sure I am, that a text cannot be truely interpreted in sense, when it is corrupted in wordes, which make the sense. Secondly he saith y ^t of my two crimes, I must strike out one: for sup­posing the text to be as the councell alledgeth it, the in­terpretation is not vnapt. But I reply, supposing the text to be as it is in deede: Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needes drawe with it not onely an vn­apt but also a wrong interpretation. But what couler of rea­son haue you (saith he) that the councell hath falsified the words of that text? Is it not in the vulgar Latine translation verbatim, as the councell alledgeth it? yes verily. And so is the councell cleared of that crime also. Not so soone as you weene: for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scrip­ture, haue crept into your translation, it had beene the councels dutie, not to haue winked at it, if it could haue seene it, much lesse to haue confirmed it, so farre forth, as of so many texts which cleerely proue Christ to bee consubstantiall with his father, it coulde finde none, but take this corrupted and falsified text. But the most auncient Latine writers, saint Augustine, saint Ambrose, and saint Hilarie doe reade iumpe as we doe, saith Bristowe.

That doth not amende the matter one whit, but sheweth y ^e errour of the Latine Church to haue the lon­ger continued, which in the councell of Lateran (if it could haue espied it) ought rather to haue bene refor­med then confirmed. But will you chaunge your copie (saith Bristowe) and frame your accusation anewe against the trans­lation as differing from the Originall, that is from the Greeke? Sir I neede not chaunge my copie, for my accusation [Page 67] is alreadie framed that this text is falsified and corrup­ted contrarie to the originall trueth: yet Bristowe go­eth on. But afore you doe so, take my counsaile with you, and bee sure first that the Greeke is so as you say. For some Greeke copies, of auncient also had euen as we haue: as namely, the copie which saint Cyrill, being a Greeke Doctor, expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in Ioan. cap. 10.

In deede it were not amisse, to take the councell of such a learned Grecian as Bristowe is, that I might bee sure howe the Greeke text is. For hee can tell me of auncient Greeke copies, yea namely of that which saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor did followe, and expounde, which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text.

Verely the sight of such a copie woulde doe mee great pleasure. But vntill I may see it, I will suspende my iudgement, and in the meane time, I woulde bor­rowe a worde or two with Thomas Stapleton the per­user and allower of this booke of Bristowe. I praye you sir, Haue you perused and allowed thi [...] booke? What els? doe you not see it printed in the first leafe, Perused and allowed by mee Thomas Stapleton? And are you so good a peruser and allower of bookes, Maister Stapleton, that you cannot espie in them Chalk taken for Cheese? Doe you not see your scholer Bristowe alledge saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor to proue the truth of the greeke text lib. 7. in Ioan cap. 10. and when all commeth to all, there is no such booke of Cyrill the auncient Greeke doctor extant, but it is poore Iodocus Clicthouius a late Latine writer, that hath supplyed those 4. bookes of Cyrill that are lost. Wherefore to returne to you M. Bristow except your councel be better and sauour more of good learning and knowledge, you may keepe it for your friendes. As for your assertion, without doubt that the copie which your authenticall translator followed, had euen as hee translated, helpeth you little or nothing: which if it were graunted, howe can you proue that hee translated it as you nowe reade it?

Seeing it is certainly knowne to them that haue confer­red [Page 68] his translation with the originall, that beside that in diuerse places he giueth not the true sense of the Greeke, in many texts also he is corrupted, where he had trans­lated right. Wherefore how fully I am aunswered on e­uery side cōcerning this text as you boast in the end, let the readers iudge.

In y ^e last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting vpon vs that corrupt Latine translation, which all learned men doe know to be corrupt, in such texts as are the most coule­rable places for the defence of popish doctrine, of which I giue one example for all. They allege the text (1. Cor. 10. Qui stat, videat ne cadat: he that standeth, let him take heed [...] he fall not) against the certaintie of faith, where as the Greeke hath not, hee that standeth, but, hee that thinketh he standeth, &c.

Bristowe biddeth mee looke better in the text, their translation is not as I charge it, but euen as I say the Greeke to be: Qui se existimat stare &c: And therefore in the margent he biddeth, stand out of his light that the childe may see. Might not I say shore vp your eyes syr. Richarde, and see that I doe not say, the text is so transla­ted, but so alledged. They alledge the text, Qui stat, videat ne cadat. And if you require mine author who allegeth it so: looke in Haymo vpon the verie place, and you shall finde these verie wordes. Qui stat in fide & operibus, videat ne cadat: He that standeth in faith and workes, let him see y ^t he fal not. And if you woulde haue a later wri­ter that so alledgeth it, looke in Gregory Martin one of your broode, who in his booke of schisme alleageth it in so many wordes: Qui stat, videat ne cadat, in the first chap­ter of his booke.

And what hath brought them to this vnderstanding, but your corrupt translation? Qui se existimat star [...], hee that iudgeth or is perswaded that he standeth. For exi­stimare signifieth properly to iudge or esteeme vppon good groundes, to thinke certeinely, and not like pu­tare, which worde Ambrose vseth in the interpretation of this text, and signifieth to thinke vainly. And so is exi­stimare [Page 69] vsed by your translator in other places. Rom. 6. Ita & vos existimate, &c. So you esteeme or iudge your selues to be deade vnto sinne &c. And againe 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo vt ministros, Christi &c. Let a man thus e­steeme or iudge of vs, as of the ministers of Christ. A­gaine Iac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate &c. My brethren count it all ioy when you fall into diuerse temptations. In all which places existimare signifieth to thinke cer­teinely & not vainely, as in this text, 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare, he that vainely thinketh that he stan­deth, let him take heede that he falleth not. I confesse I might haue brought an hundreth places of scripture in which the corruption is more cleere vnto euery sim­ple mans vnderstanding, but this I tooke to be sufficient, seing to proue the corruption of the translation, was not the principall matter of the demaunde which I aunswe­red, but to yeelde a reason why the popishe Church did not as wel corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine conteined in the same.

The first part.

Hee rehearseth many sentences of mine mangled & Fulke. interrupted with his owne glosses in which I professe, that No opinion is heresie which is not contrary to the holy scriptures, although it be accompted heresie of the worlde: where hee slaundereth me to terme them the worlde, which before I confessed to be the true Church. The places Art. 44. where I speak of them which prea­ching in these later times against poperie, haue beene of the Romishe Church condemned for heretikes, as Waldo, Wickelief, Hus, &c. In the processe following where I sayd (y ^t if Aerius had not bene an Arrian, the o­pinion he held against prayer for the dead, coulde not haue made him an heretike) Bristow compting my say­ing to be blasphemie, (belike against the Popes kitchē) addeth y ^t it seemeth I knewe not the purpose of Augu­stine in his book de Haer. which he saith was the purpose of Epiphanius also, not to confute but only to report of heresies y ^t had benbefore his time: Seeing it is inough to know y ^t the catholik Churches iudgement is against thē: And that it helpeth much the faithfull hearte onely to know what must not be belieued, although he be not a­ble to confute it by disputing. And why seeme I igno­rant of this purpose? except it be because I said, y ^t neither Epiphanus nor Augustine, reproued by scripture, that which in Aerius they cōpted to be an error. But the case is so cleare (saith Bristow) that the very aduersary confesseth, that it was the Catholik Church that iudged Aerius to be an heretike. Yea sir for his Arrianisme, but I neuer cōfessed, neither can you euer prooue y ^t any iudgement of the Catholike Church in general councel passed against Aerius for de­nying prayer for the dead, before the dayes of Epipha­nius [Page 71] or Augustine, although the error of prayer for the [...]ead in that age was commonly receyued, not vpon any good ground of Canonical scripture, but vpon a corrupt custome first brought in by heretikes. Afterward where I following an allegorie of dogges vsed by Allen, tell him y ^t hee must not teach his scholers to barke & baule against vs, nothing but The Church, the Church, like [...]inkers curres &c. he cryeth out in the margent, O wor­thy estimation that he hath of the Church, as though, I think lesse worthily of the Church, because I deride the vaine boasting of the name of y ^e Church in thē which are nothing lesse then the true church. Neither do I appoint mine enimy not to inuade me with a gunne (as he saith) when I make the scripture onely to be my weapon both inuasiue and defensiue. But it is a great absurditie as he [...]weeneth, that I say an heretike is he which in y ^e Church, obstinately mainteyneth an opinion contrarie to the scriptures: seeing S. Iohn saith, exierunt a nobis, they are gone out from vs. And if an heretikee be a man in the Church we are cockesure, with all heretikes, and the Pa­pistes onely in daunger. Why Bristow, make ye no dif­ference betweene him that is in the Church, and him y ^e is of the Church? They be not al mēbers of y ^e Church, that be in y ^e Church, and therfore S. Iohn saith of them y ^t are gone frō vs, If they had bene of vs they would haue tarried with vs. And doe you account him an here­tike that holdeth an error cleane out of the Church? then may you count all Paganes, Turkes, and Iewes, to be heretikes. What say you of Antichrist that sitteth euer in the Temple of God? it helpeth not heretikes, that they rise vp in the visible Church, from whence also they are often times cast out, so long as they bee not members of the body of Christ, which is the inuisible Church, and heauenly Ierusalem, which is the mother of vs all.

Where I sayde, that whosoeuer holdeth an opinion obstinately, which hee is not able to proue by y ^e worde of God, although hee haue many authors before him, yet hee is neuerthelesse an heretike. Bristowe ad­deth [Page 72] in the margent, though it bee S. Augustine him­selfe, and though he holde the foundation heere. cap. 5. Touching the former part, I say not onely though it were Saint Augustine, but although it were Saint Pe­ter himselfe or an Angell from heauen, Gal. 1. Tou­ching the later parte, I aunswere, my meaning is of such opinions, as are against the foundation, and so is my whole discourse, purg 412. whence this saying is bo­rowed. Agayne, where hee concludeth that I confesse Aerius, Iouinian, and Vigilantius to haue beene con­demned by the true Church of Christ, in such poyntes of doctrine, as wee agree with him: I aunswere as be­fore of Aerius alone, I neuer made such confession.

In that I refuse to finde the firste authors of all their errors, he saith, I am faine to flee to my colde ex­ception of onely scripture, as though to iustifie our do­ctrine, by the Apostles, and that so sensibly, were not inough. O sensible iustification, by which all errors, whose first authors cannot be found must be layd vpon the Apostles. But most ridiculous of all is Fulke, where he cōmeth in with this exception vpō Tertullians rule. Id esse verum &c. That is true what soeuer is first, y ^t is false & forged which is later. But how shall the first doctrine bee knowne, but by the worde of God, wherein all the doctrine of God is taught? What is here I pray you to bee laughed at? Forsooth, Bristowe saith, T [...]ullian hath there an other rule against such heresies, as presumed to say, their founders liued in the Apostles time. But this rule hee giueth against all such, as rise any time after as Aerius, Lu­ther Caluine, &c. bidding vs consider what was taught and be­lecued immediatly before they arose: for that vnd [...]ub [...]dly is the trueth, and their later doctrine is falshood. But what if Bri­stow take Richard for Robert, is not he then ridiculous? The rule of Tertullian whereof I speake, Purg. 410. & Ar. 42. is written in his booke aduersus Praxeam. al­though Allen doe falsely quote it de praescriptionibus. But what if Tertullian euen in this rule giuen against he­retikes in his booke de praescriptionibus doe expresly af­firme the worde of God to bee the triall of that which [Page 73] [...] former and true to conuince that which is latter and [...]lse, is not Bristowe most ridiculous of all? His words [...]e these: ‘ Sed ab, excessu reuertar ad principalitatē veritatis & [...]osteritatem mendaci [...]atis deputandam ex illius quoque parabo­ [...] patrocinio, quae bonum semen frumenti a Domino seminatum [...]rimò constituit auenarum aut sterilis foeni adulterium, ab ini­ [...]ico diabolo postea superducit. Propriè enim doctrinarum di­ [...]tinctionem figurat, quia & alibi verbum Dei seminis simili­ [...]do est. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur, id esse dominicum & [...]erum, quod sit prius tradi [...]m: id autem extraneum & sal­ [...]um, quod sie posterius immissum. Ea sententia manebit aduer­ [...]s posteriores quasque haereses, quibus nulla constantia de con­ [...]ciencia compettt ad defendendam sibi veritatem. But from this [...]xcesse, I will returne to shew y ^e priority of truth & po­ [...]terioritie of falshood euen out of y ^e defence of y ^e parable [...]hich first of al setteth forth y ^e good seed of wheat sowne [...]y our Lorde, and afterwarde bringeth on the coun­ [...]erfeiting of Otes or baren grasse by the enemie the [...]iuel. For it figureth properly y ^e difference of doctrines, [...]ecause elsewhere also the worde of GOD is the si­ [...]ilitude of seede: So by the very order, it is made ma­ [...]ifest that to bee the Lordes & true which was formost [...]eliuered, that to be straunge and false which is cast in [...]fterward. This decree shal remain against later heresies whatsoeuer, which haue no constācie of consciēce to de­ [...]end y ^e truth to be on the irside.’ Where is there here any word of Bristows glosse of Tertullian bidding vs consi­der &c? I thinke he had not redde y ^e place in Tertullian himself, but followed some papistes collection vpon it, and because hee coulde not auoyde that which I sayd, hee thought it best by calling it so much and so often ridiculous, to laugh it out, as they say, when hee was not able otherwise to aunswere it.

Likewise I sayd, that we refuse not the rule of Vin­centius Lyrinensis concerning antiquitie, so you can prooue God to bee the author, the Prophetes and Apo­stles for witnesses: vnder this antiquitie that which had an erroneus beginning shall haue a shamefull en­ding, Purg. 399. Heere Bristowe taketh aduantage [Page 74] of the Printers error, although he be admonished [...] of in the Corrections, and not content with that, [...] ­fieth my wordes making me to say, as for witnesse [...] this antiquitie we passe not for them. Yes [...] we esteeme all good witnesses of that auncient [...] whereof God is the author. But you say y ^e rule w [...] receyue, proueth the Apostles to be authors of sole [...] payer for the dead in y ^e Masse, & such like articles [...] taught and beleeued, before Luther began such [...] ­uations &c. But I reply, that Vincentius rule, is [...] such fooles fable, but requireth antiquitie to bee [...] ­tinued alwayes euen from Christ, which seeing you [...] not shewe, no [...] other conditions which hee requi [...] for your articles, his rule helpeth you nothing at a [...] [...] rule which he handleth at large throughout his b [...] is briefly set downe in this sentence. ‘ In ipsa [...] Ecclesia mag [...] [...] est, [...] id [...] q [...]d [...], q [...]d [...]er, [...] ab [...]us [...] est [...] propri [...]que C [...]n (q [...]d i [...]sa [...]) q [...]d [...]. A [...] the Catholike Church it selfe wee must greatly [...] that wee hold that thing which hath bene euery [...], which hath beene alwayes, which hath beene of all [...] beleeued, for that is truely and properly Ca [...] (which the verie force and reason of the name d [...] ­reth) that comprehendeth al thinges truely [...] ­ly.’ Examine your articles by this rule a [...]d you [...] finde not one of them catholike. So that my excep [...] of y ^e soueraigne authority of only scripture [...]deth [...] well with the rules both of Tertulli [...] and Vince [...] Lyri [...]. For to the trueth, as Aristotle saith, all [...] ­ges agree that are true, but f [...]lshoode soone bewrayeth itselfe.

2 Aga [...] the A [...] [...]. Bristowe. F [...].

Aga [...] [...] [...]ed traditions of the Apo [...], I make exceptiō ▪ of the writinges of the Apostles to b [...] the onely c [...]yne [...]esse of the [...] true tradition. A [...]d I saye All [...] bl [...]ph [...]mously f [...]thereth [...]ppon the Apo­ [...], [Page 75] the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for y ^e [...]. [...]we chargeth me neuerthelesse to affirme, y ^t [...], Cyprian, Augustine, Ierome, and a great ma­ [...] are witnesses hereof, Pur. 362. wherin he shame­ [...]y belyeth mee, for that I do onely rehearse parte of [...]s wordes which affirmeth them to be witnesses. [...]ch thing Bristowe might easily see by the diuersi­ [...] of print, if he had not beene disposed to [...]under me. [...]er this by the example of Allen, which is a great po­ [...], I pose the Papistes with this question: Why God [...]uld haue none of the Apostles to put this matter or [...]e worde thereof in writing, which afterward shoulde [...] disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, &c. [...] [...] Bristow after much bibling out of S. Augustin, [...]e Apostles haue not left in writing the whole order [...]celebration of y ^e sacraments: answereth, y ^t one piece of [...] that it was omitted by the apostles, was for bre­ [...]s sake. But I (Bristow) do not speake of any order or [...]me of ceremonies, which because they are variable, [...]cording to times, places & persons, the apostles haue [...] prescribed: but of y ^e doctrin of praying & sacrifising [...]r the dead, which in much lesse b [...]uitie then the [...]stles vsed, might haue beene without any tedi­ [...]nes let downe, at the least in one worde mentioned. [...]herfore breuitie could be no piece of the cause, but a [...]ore & miserable refuge of a papist driuen to the wall [...]r want of a better answere. But if this be a piece, what is then [...] supplemēt of y ^e whole cause? Bristow answereth in these words: [...] to [...] in [...]g. Which [...] so many [...]f [...] one of [...]wspan [...] w [...]ld [...]. Do I imagine (Bristowe▪ & am so greatly [...]ceiued▪ I follow not mine own imagination but their [...]ne writing. S. Iohn testifieth that those things which [...] had written, were su [...] to obtaine euerlasting life [...]y beleeuing them. Io [...]. S. Luke [...]eweth his purpose [...] [...]th in a [...] summe, the trueth of all thinges, [...] the [...]les deliuered, concerning the doc [...]ine & [...]ngs of Christ L [...]. Ac [...]. S. Paul [...]eth y ^t the holy [Page 76] scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe [...] prepared to all good workes, 2 Tim. 2. But you haue greate reason to proue that they purposed not to put all in writinge: because neither so many of them, nor o [...] of them so often, would haue mētioned one thing: wh [...] as contrariwise it is manifest thereby, that they studie not so much for breuitie but that they might haue ex­pressed in a word or two prayers & sacrifice for y ^t dea [...] seing so manye of them, & some one so often, doeth mention one thing. Againe it were againste reason, that they shoulde mention one thing so often, whic [...] though it be profitable, yet it is not necessarie to bee often mentioned: & to omitte altogether such matten as are necessarie to bee knowne, and not in one worde mention them. The purpose of the holy ghost, that Bristowe doth imagine, were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect: that the gospels were written onely to shewe Christ to say Consummatum est and al things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him: the Actes of the Apostles to shew, but as it were the first birth of the Church: the Apocalipse to shew the whole course of the Churche, to the ende of the worlde, The other bookes were written (saith he) specially against the perfidious Iewes & other false maisters of that time: As likewise in euerie age after­warde we haue the Ecclesiasticall (I say not the Canonicall) wri­ters and councels. See you not how the blasphemous dog▪ restraineth the vse of y ^e Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written, & cōpareth Ecclesia­sticall writers and councels, w ^t the canonical scriptures? If this that he saith were true, the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to saluation as S. Paul saith w ^tout traditions & Ecclesiastical writers. 2. Tim. 3.

Those thinges which S. Paul promiseth to set in or­der when he commeth, 1 Cor. 11. I said must be vnder­stood not of doctrine but of ceremonies, as the worde [...], doth signifie. Bristowe aunswereth, that the solemne prayer for the deade in the celebration of the sacrifice, is one of Saint Paules ordinances. I reply, if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contayned [Page 77] Saint Paules writing, yea, or in any part of the cano­ [...]all Scriptures, wee would not striue for the forme [...] prayer. But if wee may adde newe doctrines vpon [...]ler of the Apostles tradition, neither is the Scrip­ [...]e so perfect as the holy Ghoste affirmeth it to bee, [...]ther can the gappe be shutt from any heresie, to [...]ast it selfe of the tradition of the Apostles, as the Va­ [...]tinians, and other heretikes haue done, and all he­ [...]ikes may do.

But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri­ [...]gs. To this obiection I aunswere, that their writings [...] the onlye true testimonie of their tradition to vs. [...]stowe replyeth: So were they not to the Thessalonians, [...] they had of S. Paul traditions partly by worde of mouth, [...]tly by writing. I reioyne, that wee haue no traditions [...] the Apostes, but by their writing wee neuer hearde [...] deliuer any thing by word of mouth, but we know [...]ir writings contein the summe of their preachings. Concerning the doubtfulnesse and contradiction y ^t [...]yde was in the fathers them selues, about those mat­ [...]s that are not conteined in the Scriptures: Bristowe [...]nswereth first, their doubts are not of the traditions, [...]t of circumstances of persons, and other matters con­ [...]ning the traditions, which is as much as I shewed by [...]amples and testimonies out of their writings, Purg. [...]7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317.

The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostome (where he sayeth, first that small helpe can be procured for the dead, afterwarde he sayeth, the Apostles knewe that much commoditie came to the dead by praying [...]or them) Bristowe aunswereth is none at all. For in [...]e first place, he speaketh of riche men which did not pro­ [...]e any comfort to their soules by their riches, that their friends [...]n procure but little in respect of that they might haue procured [...]em selues: because a mans owne workes are also meritorious [...] euerlasting rewarde so are not his friends workes meritori­ [...] vnto him at all, no nor so satisfactorious of temporall paine, [...] his owne nothing like. But how a mans owne workes [...] his friendes workes, may be either meritorious or sa­tisfactorious [Page 78] any thing at all, he bringeth no proofe [...] all. And that he sayeth of Chrysostome is vtterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam [...] istos, vnto those riche men so dying onely, what reaso [...] is there, why orantes pro istis, should not be referred vn­to them also? But seeing the memory which he sai [...] was decreede of the Apostles, was generall for all the [...] that departed in faith, why should not that, much profite comming thereby, pertaine to them, of who [...] he sayde before, that small helpe they could haue? Like­wise, that I added further of the Cathecumeni wh [...] Chrysostome iudged of helping them, Bristowe pas [...] ouer and sayeth neuer a worde vnto it.

3 Against the Churches authoritie. Bristowe.

I saye plainly, the practise and authoritie of y ^e church, without the worde of God, reuealed in the scripture [...], Fulke. is no rule of trueth. Where I commende Tertull [...] for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead, are not taken out of the Scriptures, Bristowe sayeth I am hastie to take that which Tertullian doth not giue, as he hath shewed in the thirde chapter: but seeing in the thirde Chapter, he referreth mee to the 9. Chapter, thither also will I referre him for answere.

Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine, Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi: that the order of the ch [...] ­ches prayer (saith Bristowe) is euen a plaine prescription to all the faithfull what to beleeue, because Fulke could not make his flo­rish with that ende, forwarde, he turneth the staffe, as though S. Augustine & D. Allen had sayed, that the lawe of beleeuing should make a lawe of praying. And here he cryeth out of falsification by changing. So sayeth S. Augustine (saith Bristowe:) in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often a­gainst the Pelagians (sayeth Allen) but in what booke or chapter neither of both doeth shewe among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians. Wherefore if I haue altered the forme of wordes yet without falsification, especially seing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures, [Page 79] [...]t faith should teach vs to praye, rather then prayer [...]che [...] to beleeue. For howe shall they call vppon [...], sayeth the Apostle, in whome they haue not belee­ [...]d? Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutuall relation [...]weene the cause and the effectes, the one argueth & [...]oueth the other. For as faith teacheth men first to [...]ye, so the prayer is an argument of the faith, accor­ [...]g to which it is conceiued. But true faith com­ [...]th onely by hearing the worde of God, therefore [...]e prayer commeth onely by hearing the worde of [...]d, and is not acceptable to God except it be framed [...]ording to the worde of God. After this, he sayeth, I [...] as bolde to except against the practise commen­ [...]d euen in the canonicall scripture, because I allowe [...]t the practise of Iudas Machabaeus conteined in the [...]phane and lying booke of the Machabees.

I sayde Ar. 86. There is neuer heresie but there is as [...]at doubt of the church as of the matter in question: [...]erefore only the Scripture is the staye of a mans con­ [...]nce. Hereof Bristowe gathereth this great absurdi­ [...]: Because heretikes make doubt of the Church, this heretike [...] that no Christian leane vnto it. Yes verily, I will haue [...] men that know the Church, leane to the Church, de­ [...]ding truth against heresies: but for them that doubt [...] the trueth, and of the Church, I saye only scripture i [...] [...] staye of their conscience, to trye the trueth and the Church both: seing both heretikes & Catholikes make as great challenge to the Church as to the trueth.

But some heretikes make doubt of the Scriptures (sayeth he) either all, or some peece, as you doe of the [...]achabees. I aunswere, if any denye all Scriptures, [...]ey are more like Paganes and Atheists then heretiks, [...]th whome wee are not to reason by authoritie of [...]riptures, but by other inducements, such as were [...]d to the Paganes. Against those heretikes that re­ [...]iue some part of the Scriptures, wee are to dispute [...]t of those Scriptures which they receiue, as our saui­ [...]r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the bookes of [...]oses, because they receiued none other Scripture. [Page 80] For the book of Macha bees we doubt not, but are cer­taine, it is a prophane booke, as I haue shewed by many arguments, neuer receiued in the primitiue Church f [...] 400. yeares after Christ.

Where I say we submitted our selues to al Churche [...], but so that they allow no consent or submission, but [...] the trueth which must be tryed onely by gods word [...] Bristow saith with that, but so we wil consent the true [...] to Iacke strawe. Verily to consent vnto Iacke stra [...] in truth, I take it to be none absurditie: but I speake not onely of consent, but also of submission which we are not readie to yeeld to any but such whose authoritie [...] reuerence.

As for the 4. rules enacted by Parliament, for condem­ning heresie, if Bristow woulde vnderstand them like a quiet subiect, and not deride them like a scornefull trai­tor, he might vnderstand, y ^t the three later are not contra­rie to the first, which determineth heresie by contrariety to the canonicall scripture, which is declared either in y ^e 4. first general councels, or in any other generall coun­cell agreeing with the scripture, or may vpon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter: Not that the Parli­ament euer did imagine that it had authoritie to make truth heresie, or to make any thing heresie, which is not contrary to the canonicall scriptures.

After this he chargeth me that I will not beleue the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures. What if I woulde not? were I worse then the Thessalonians, or Bereans, which dayly searched the scriptures, to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were euen so? Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture (saith Bristowe) and turne the curse that saint Paul pronounceth, Gal. 1. which was of preaching, as if it were of onely scripture. I aun­swere, my wordes are these, if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed: but seing wee haue no certeinty of the worde of God, since the Apostles departure, but the canonicall scriptures, which doe containe al that they preached, the same curse is rightly applyed to them that teach any other way of [Page 81] saluatiō, then that which is taught in y ^e holy Scriptures. The rest of this diuision is spent in shewing that I hold [...]ill my exception of onely Scriptures against councels, [...]he see apostolike and succession of bishops, with a note [...] the ende, what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly euidence, whereof if I had any couler my selfe, [...]o mountybanke pedler, is so facing and boasting, as I [...]nd my fellowes. As franke as I seeme in renouncing [...]hat goodly euidence, I trust to be carefull enough; to [...]olde fast the euidence of eternall life, which is the ho­ [...]y Scriptures of God: and if I and my fellowes boast in [...]hem, because our boasting is in God, I doubt not but [...]ee shalbe better accepted of him, then they that count [...]hat boasting a stale exception, and boast in vanitie, [...]ust in lying, and at least make flesh for their arme, & [...]heir heart departeth from the liuing God.

4 Against the fathers. Bristowe.

Although I challenge the Papists to proue their do­ [...]rine Fulke. of Purgatorie and prayers for the dead, out of the [...]uncient catholike fathers that liued within 200. yeares [...]ter Christ: because I knowe they cannot, yet in that [...]allenge, I say nothing contradictorie to my former [...]ssertion, that onely the worde of God conteined in the [...]oly Scriptures, is the iudge of all doctrine, and tryall of trueth, and stay of a Christian mans conscience a­gainst any thing y ^t is taught to be beleeued vnto salua­tion, or concerning the worship of God, either contrary to it, or beside it. But Fulkes two onelyes (sayeth Bri­stowe) namely onely the moste auncient Church, and only Scripture, are vtterly without all ground, and but [...]eere voluntarie. If it be without grounde, to make the worde of God the onely iudge of godlinesse, and the most ancient Church the best witnesse thereof, let euery Christian conscience consider. As for the voluntarinesse, [...]f you vnderstand the challenges to be voluntarie, be­ [...]ause you will not accept them, let your will stande in [...]eede of reason: but if you call them voluntarie, be­cause [Page 82] you neede not accept them, and yet approue your selues good Christians: remember who it is, that sayth, my sheepe heare my voice and not a straungers, & let euery man see whereto the bragge of antiquitie is come, when you will not be tyed to the most aunci­ent Churches testimony, and the eldest writers of the same.

Nowe, concerning other by quarrels, and cauils, whereas I sayde: Whatsoeuer we finde in the fathers agreea­ble to the Scriptures, wee receiue it, with their praise: and what­soeuer is disagreeable to the scriptures, we refuse with their leaue. Bristowe noteth within a parenthesis: He meaneth ex­pressed in the Scriptures. But who made him so priuie of my meaning? my wordes import no such thing: for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them. I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil. lib. 2. Cap. 32. which spea­keth of Cyprian, that which I spake of all the fathers in generall. ‘ Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, q [...] literas Cypriani, non vt canonicas habeo, sed ea [...] ex canonic [...] considero, & quod in eis diuinarum scripturarum authori [...] congruit, cum laude eius accipio, quod autem non congruit, cu [...] pace eius respuo. I am not holden by the authoritie of this Epistle, because I doe not account the writings of Cyprian as canonicall, but I consider them by the canonicall, and that which in them agreeth with the authoritie of the holy Scriptures, I receiue it with his praise, but that which agreeth not, I refuse it with his leaue.’ I thinke Bristowe will teache S. Augustine shortly, by that which agreeth with the Scripture, to meane onely that which is expressed in so manye wordes.

Where I sayde, that when the fathers are opposed a­gainst the manifest worde of God, and the credite of the Apostles, there is no cause that we should be carryed a­way with them. Bristowe sayeth, in the margent, a [...] though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles. And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles, when wee saye, The Apostles haue not [Page 83] taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings: you aunswere, but the doctors haue taught prayers for the dead in their writings.

Where I saye the authoritie of mortall men, is not to be receiued, he noteth our absurditie, because not onelye Melancton and such like (as Allen hath tolde [...]s) were mortall men: but also in the same terme of mortall men, are the Apostles them selues comprehen­ded. And what of this? Doe wee buylde vppon the authoritie of Melancton, or of Peter and Paul, as they were mortall men? No verily: Wee buyld vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Iesus Christ beeing the corner stone, and the onely author of the doctrine, whereof the Prophets and Apostles are wit­nesses, who spake and writte as they were moued by the holy ghoste, and therefore their writings wee re­ceiue as the worde of God, which the spirite of God hath endyted by the penne of the Apostles.

Where I sayde: We dare not depend vppon any one man [...] [...]udgement, for wee must depend onely vppon Gods worde. Bristowe answereth: Euen so dealt the vnbeleeuers, and the doubtfull and weake with the Apostles in their life time, yea, and [...]ith Christ him selfe: and yet to winne such persons, both the Apostles and Christ him selfe, condescended to them accordingly. And why do not you follow the example of Christ, & of his Apostles, to winne so many thousandes, as doe re­fuse your doctrine, because you doe not iustifie it by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures? But the faithfull, (you thinke) for all that were not so straite laced, but beleeued them vppon their owne worde, both Christ and his Apostles, be­cause of the spirite of trueth, that he sent to them. And God be thanked, we as faithfull men, acknowledge without controuersie, the spirite of trueth in Christ, and his A­postles. But he hath not sent his spirite to them onely (sayeth Bristow) but also to his Church after them for euer. We doubt not, but he hath giuen his spirite to his Church, but not in such full measure, as to his Apostles. And if he had, how should wee knowe that Church that hath the same spirite, but by tryall of the scriptures, which were [Page 84] vndoubtedly written by the same spirite. Bristow saith, the faithfull will no lesse beleeue the Church, at all times, for the same spirite, then the Apostles. He must first proue, the spirite so giuen to the Church, that shee can no more erre in her decrees, then the Apostles could in their writings. Secondly, if that were proued, the tryall of the Scriptures is necessary to discerne the true Church from all false congregations, which all boast of the spirite of trueth, as much as the true Church. And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. Iohn, bid­deth vs not beleeue euery spirite, but trye the spirites, whether they be of God, we knowe none so sure a tri­all, as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scrip­tures, whether it be a multitude of men, or seueral per­sons, of one age, or another, of one degree or other, that offreth to teache any doctrine, which he or they pre­tende to haue of the spirite of God.

Last of all, where I sayde: Age can neuer make falshod to be trueth, and therefore I w [...]y not your prowd bragges worth a strawe. Bristowe noteth in the margent, It is pryde to follow the fathers, and humilitie to condemne them. Whereto I aunswere, to boast of the fathers to main­taine an olde errour, is stinking pryde, and it is not a­gainst true humilitie to make fathers and mothers, and all things else subiect to the trueth of Gods worde, re­uealed in the holy scriptures.

The second parte.

When in all this Chapter, you deny, onely scripture Fulke. to be of soueraine authoritie, sufficiency, and credite, to teache vs all the will of God, are you not impudent, to [Page 85] saye, the question is not of the authoritie of the Scrip­tures? But I supposing the controuersies to be of the meaning, and not of the authoritie, Pur. 363. do aunswer nothing whether the likelihood b [...] on our side, or on the auncient doctors side, for the meaning of the scripture. What then? I aunswere, the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needelesse in that controuersie: where some of y ^e do­ctors confesse prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures, other wrest the Scriptures so mani­festly, that the Papistes them selues are ashamed to vse those textes for such purposes. This aunswere I trust, will satisfie reasonable men for that controuersie. Af­ter this, he sayeth, I count my selfe and my companions happie, for such blinde presumption, to search the mea­ning of the Scriptures, only out of the Scriptures, with­out the cōmentaries of doctors, but as he troweth, not without the cōmentaries of Caluine. But herein, as in all things almost, he belyeth mee: for I neuer spake word against the reading of the cōmentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning, but onely against absolute credite to be giuen to their exposition, with­out weying how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places.

Likewise, where I compare the whole heape of su­perstition & errour, out of which Allen raiseth a mist of mens deuises to a dunghill: Bristowe noteth, that I make the doctors writings a dunghill. Surely what superstition or errour so euer be in the doctors, as the sweeping of a faire house, is meete to be cast on a dunghill. Let Bristowe or Allen, if he list, say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors. And yet it followeth not, that the doctors writings are a dunghill, more then that a kings pallace is a dunghil, because the sweepings thereof are meete for the dunghill.

To passe ouer his rayling termes of drunkennesse, & blindnesse, &c. Let vs come to the meaning of the scrip­tures, where I sayde, wee shalbe neuer the more cer­teine of the trueth, whether wee challenge, or leaue the likelihod of vnderstanding y ^e scriptures to the doctors.

[Page 86] Bristowe aunswereth, whosoeuer expoundeth the scripture vnto that wherein the doctors doe agree, shall bee euer most cer­taine of trueth (which is inoughe) though not alwayes certain of that same verie places meaning. Wee are then much the neere, when the question is of the scriptures mea­ning, if by the consent of the doctors, we cannot be cer­taine of the scriptures▪ meaning. And if that trueth (as we beleeue that all trueth) is in the scriptures, howe can we be certaine of the trueth by the agreement of the doctors, where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures?

Where I aunswere, that wee haue our measure of Gods spirite, as the doctors had, although wee agree not with them in all interpretations, euen as Cyprian and Cornelius, were both indued with Gods spirite, although they agreede not in exposition and iudgement of the scriptures: Bristowe replyeth, that Cyprian was of Cornelius his iudgement implicitè, though explicitè, hee were of an erronious iudgement. And so is euerie Catholike erring of ignorance, in effect of the trueth with other Catholikes not erring, because hee q [...]e [...]ly. continueth in vnitie with them, and doth not obstinately holde his error against them. But so is not the case betweene the olde Doctors and vs: for neither will wee bee reformed by them, neither woulde they be reformed by A [...]rius, Iouinianus &c. whom he calleth our forefathers.

If you haue no greater diuersitie then this, the case will be all one, for neither woulde Cyprian be refor­med by Cornelius, neither woulde Cornelius bee re-Formed by Cyprian. But if the olde Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the deade, of Ca­tholikes in their time, as wee can make in this time, although they woulde not bee reformed by Aeri­us an heretike, yet charitie moueth vs to thinke, they would haue yelded to the trueth reuealed by a Ca­tholike.

Where I conclude, that the harde places of scripture▪ are best vnderstoode by conference of the easier, ad­ding the ordinarie meanes of witt, learning, &c. ad­ding [Page 87] that whosoeuer is negligent in this search may ea­ [...]ie bee deceiued: Bristowe noteth, a comfortable do­ [...]rine for the ignorant forsooth: As though any Christi­ [...] man or woman, ought to bee ignoraunt in the [...]riptures, so farre forth as they teache the way of sal­ [...]ation: otherwise it is no discomfort vnto them, al­ [...]ough they vnderstande not euerie harde place of the [...]criptures.

After this he gathereth, that I place all in a mans owne [...]iligence to trust no man nor men, but to reade the scriptures, [...]onferre the places, and so gather the meaning by him selfe. So that with him, it is nothing that saint Augustine saith [...] Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I receiued my [...]ule, ‘ Magnificè igitur & salubriter, &c. Magnificallye [...]herefore and wholesomely, the holy Ghost hath so [...]empered the holy scriptures, that with open places, hee [...]ight satisfie hunger, with darke places he might wype [...]ff lothsomnesse: for nothing in a manner is brought [...]ut of those obscurities, which may not bee founde in [...]ome other place most plainely spoken.’ It is nothing [...]hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scrip­ [...]ures, by earnest prayer to bee obtained of the inter­pretors. But if diligence may doe so much, hee tel­ [...]th vs of the greate diligence vsed in the Popes semi­ [...]arie, for Englande, vnder the gouernement of Doctor Allen (which prooueth it selfe to bee a semi­ [...]arie of treason) in much reading and conferring of the scriptures, with all other helpes and meanes, whereby they must bee more certaine of trueth then wee, by mine owne rule. No, Bristowe, not they that reade the scriptures with such minde as you doe (without the extraordinarie grace of God) shall neuer come to the knowledge of the trueth, which they seeke not in them, but the confirmation of their preiudicated, erronious, and hereticall opinions.

There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the de­crees. Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum, which sheweth the lette of your vnderstanding, and in the ende concludeth, ‘ [Page 88] Non enim sensi [...], &c. you ought not to seeke a forrain and straunge sense, without the scriptures, that you may by any meanes confirme the same by the authoritie of the scriptures, but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselues.’ Concerning the bragge of Hebrewe and Greeke texts, to be proued against vs, whē we see the booke, wee will shewe you our iudgement. In the meane time if the authour shewe not more witte in suppressing his labour, then you in vaunting of it before it come forth, I assure you he will shewe himself to the world to haue neither learning wisdome, nor ho­nestic.

The 3. part.

I meane by onely scripture, what soeuer is taught in plaine wordes, or may be gathered by necessarie con­clusion, Fulke. which is as good as expresse wordes. For all trueth needefull for vs to knowe (say I) may be proo­ued by scripture, either in plaine words or by necessarie conclusion, which is all one. Where I vrge Allen to shewe some sentence of scripture to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the deade, Bristow saith, I confessed that I haue hearde of him diuerse sentences in the third chap­ter of his reply pag. 19. but reade that page who will, and thèy shall finde neuer a worde of such confession. The scripture it self, that I except against by calling for Ca­nonicall scripture, is the booke of Machabees, which he promiseth to proue to be canonicall in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receiue aunsweres.

The 4. part.

Before he rehearse my words of promise, he repeteth Fulke. [...]w precise he hath shewed me: first to admitte no eui­ [...]nce that they alledge, but scripture onely, both in all [...]ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture: [...]at euidence I admit, and howe farre, hath beene shew­ [...] before, & more at large in my answere to his motiues [...]d demaunds. Secondly he saith, I admitte no scripture, [...]ich maketh so plainly with them, that I cannot auoid but by denying it to be canonicall, though I graunt [...]o haue the confirmation of y ^e same true Church, which [...]oueth me, as the holy ghost, to receiue the other scrip­ [...]res for canonical. This he speaketh for the Machabees [...]oke, which although I denie to bee canonicall, yet I [...]uer graunted to haue the confirmation of the true [...]urch, neither yet euer had it: againe where he saith, [...]e true Church moueth me, as the holy ghost, to re­ [...]ue the other scriptures for canonicall, hee doth mee [...]onge for the Church moueth not me as y ^e holy ghost, [...]t in a much inferior degree of mouing: y ^e holye Ghost [...] the author moueth mee, the true Church as a wit­ [...]sse.

Thirdly hee saith, I admit no scripture which I con­ [...]sse to be canonicall, vnlesse it make so expressely, so plainely, so manifestly, & so necessarily with them, that it cannot by any subtiltie be auoyded. This proposition being in the copulatiue is false, for I admit arguments, taken either out of y ^e expresse and plaine words of scrip­ture, or of collection necessarily concluding. Let him make a newe logike, if hee will haue me admitte argu­mentes that doe not conclude necessarily.

Howe I obserue that law that I so rigorously exact, [...]e will examine in the next Chapter. Then fol­ [...]oweth a large rehersall of sentences wherein I affirme, [...]hat by the grace of God, I am able to proue euery arti­ [...]e of faith that wee holde against the papistes, by ne­ [...]essarie argu [...]ents out of the scriptures. Bristowe [Page 90] saith in the next chapter, I shall haue ynowe, yet if [...] will, one article shall be this. That Antichrist is not one certaine person: That I shall easily proue thus: One certaine person is not many Antichrists, there ha [...] beene manie: therefore Antichriste is not one cer­taine person. The minor is saint Iohn. Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers. 18. Againe, Antichrist is hee, whosoeuer denyeth that Iesus is Christ: One certaine person onely denyeth not that Iesus is Christ: Therefore Antich rist is not one certaine person onely, 1. Iohan. 2. vers. 22. Againe, Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ to bee come in the fleshe, is the spirite of Antichrist: but this is not the spirite of one certaine person: ergo Antichrist is not one certaine person. The beast described Apocalips 13. and expounded Apocalips 17. is Antichrist, but manie kinges are the partes of that beaste, therefore An­tichrist is no one certaine person. The whoore of Ba­bylon whiche is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the citie of Rome, is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Anti­christ, but the citie of Rome is not borne by one certayne person, therefore Antichrist is no one cer­taine person.

An other article that hee requireth me to proue is: That the Churches flying into the wildernesse, at the comming of Antichrist, is to become inuisible to the worlde: Although this article bee not a matter of faith, in controuersie betweene vs, neither yet so affir­med of mee, as though to bee in the wildernesse, were nothing else, but to bee inuisible to the worlde: yet I will proue so much as I affirmed, that the Church be­ing in the wildernesse, is inuisible to the worlde. The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not, is to them inuisible: But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wildernesse: Therefore the Church being in the wildernesse is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world, inuisible.

Thirdly hee requireth mee to proue that the begin­ning of that comming and flying shoulde bee so soone after Christes passion. Before I proue this, it were rea­son [Page 91] you should tell how sone you meane, or I said, such [...]mming and fleeing shoulde bee. And the like I say [...]the continuance of so many ages and the ende so [...]g before Christes seconde comming. The holy [...]ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver. 5. that immediately after [...]rist was taken vp to God and his throne, the woman [...]hich is the Church, being persecuted by the dragon [...]d into the wildernesse. The time of continuance is [...]uratiuely & obscurely described by dayes, monethes, [...]d yeares, and generally by a time, times, and halfe a [...]e, which I neuer tooke vppon me to define howe [...]ng they should be, in account of our yeres, nor when [...] comming of Christ should be.

After this hee saith, I triumph in lying, when I af­ [...]me the Papistes dare not abyde the tryall of onely [...]ipture, whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all [...]is Chapter, as to prooue, that the tryall of true do­ [...]ine ought not to bee onely by scripture. And [...]terwarde hee sayth playnely, they refuse the tryall [...] onely scriptures, but not by scriptures, no more [...]eu they refuse faith, because they refuse onely faith. [...]here hee noteth mee for foysting in the worde one­ [...], in the minor of this argument. The spouse of [...]hrist heareth the voyce of Christ and is ruled there­ [...]y: But the Romishe Church will in no wise bee [...]led onely by the voyce of Christ: therefore shee is [...]ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought euerie reasona­ [...]le man woulde haue vnderstoode, onely, in the maior [...]so, seeing she is no honest spouse that will bee ruled [...]y the voyce of an other man then her husbande, or [...]hat will bee ruled by her selfe, or take vppon [...]er to ouerrule her husbande, I added also in the [...]inor, which Bristow omitteth, that the Romish church [...]goeth a whoring after her owne inuentions, and com­ [...]mitteth grosse idolatrie. Ar. 99.

Where I charge the Popishe Church with blas­ [...]mie, for submitting Gods word to her owne iudgemēt: [...]he answereth it is al one as if I shold say, y ^e Apostles did [Page 92] blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will, b [...] cause they tooke vppon them to iudge of the true s [...] and because S. Peter sayde the vnlearned, being hi [...] selfe a fisherman, and vnstable, did misconster S. Pau [...] epistles &c. to their owne damnation: which is all [...] as if Bristowe coulde make vs beleeue, that the Ap [...] stles tooke vppon them without the spirit of God, [...] contrarie to the scriptures in other places, to iudge [...] sense of any scripture, as the Popish Church doeth: [...] that Saint Peter, being an Apostle indued with so m [...] ny graces, was vnlearned, because hee had beene a [...] sherman.

Agayne where I sayde, the Popishe Church ma [...] festly reiecteth the whole autoritie of all the Cano [...] call scriptures, when shee affirmeth that no booke [...] holy scripture is Canonicall, but so far foorth as sh [...] will allowe it: This sayth Bristowe, is as though [...] Apostles and the Church after them, manifestly rei [...] ­cted the whole &c: because they made a Canon or C [...] ­nons, whereof the sayde scriptures were and are call [...] Canonicall, wherevppon him selfe also counteth th [...] as confirmed by the holy Ghost. That the scriptu [...] are called Canonicall of such a Canon it is not yet pro­ued, for they may bee called the Canon and Canoni­call, because they are the certayne rule to directe [...] matters of religion. But admitte the Apostles or [...] Church immediately after them, in hauing the spir [...] of discretion, made such a Canon to discerne true a [...]d diuine bookes from false and conterfeite books or wri­ten by the spirite of man, what is this like to that bl [...] phemous authoritie which the Popishe Church chalen­geth? that shee gaue authoritie to the scriptures and might as well haue receiued the Gospell of Bartholo­mewe as of Mathew, of Thomas as of Iohn &c: where­by it followeth, that by the like power shee may now reiect the Gospells of Mathewe and Iohn, and receiue the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas.

Where I sayde, the popish Bishoppes durst not a­byde the conference at Westminster, first he quarelleth [Page 93] [...]my phrase, because I saide it was before the whole [...]rlde, as one that care not what I say. In deede I [...]de accompt of the iudgement of reasonable rea­ [...]s which woulde not take my wordes as though I [...]nt that all the whole worlde was gathered into [...]estminster Church: but that the conference and dis­ [...]tation was so open and so notorious that all y ^e world [...]ght haue knowledge of it.

Secondly hee calleth it a mocke conference, in com­ [...]rison of the councell of Trent, yet was there no or­ [...]r taken, but such as was well liked of by the Papistes [...]m selues, vntill they sawe their cause coulde carie no [...]dite.

Hee chargeth vs for refusing to come to the councell [...] Trent, being so solemnly & honorably inuited, with [...]h safeconductes &c. To your safeconductes I aun­ [...]ere briefly the councel of Constance hath discredited [...]m for euer on your behalfes. And to your disputati­ [...] there offered, I say it was to no purpose, in such a [...]cke councell, where the Pope which is the princi­ [...]ll partie that is accused of heresie, shall be the onely [...]dge and disposer of all thinges passed therein against [...] good examples, lawes, equitie and reason.

Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner [...] our whole countrie, I will not quarell at your phrase, [...]t I maruell what great reuenewes hee hath in Flaun­ [...]rs that hee receyueth no exhibition as you say from any bodie.

But nowe to the fourefolde offer: wherein first you say, that the councell of Trent compted vs subiectes [...] much as we compte you the subiectes of Englande. [...]e compt you as you shew your selues to bee, errant [...]aytors to Englande and the most godly prince of the [...]me, our soueraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth: as for [...]e conuenticle of Trent, we owe no more subiection [...]to it, them to the citie of Louaine.

The first offer is, that wee must proeure a safecon­ [...]uct for you from the Court in such forme as the coun­ [...]ll gaue vs, and some of you will come ouer and ioyne [Page 94] with vs in any conference that shall bee prescribed, ac­cording to the common lawes of a conference, [...] there you refer mee to your 19. and 1. demaunde, wheret [...] I haue made aunswere alreadie. But as concerning yo [...] request, that we shoulde procure safeconduct for yo [...] it is altogether vnresonable, because you are not on [...] heretikes, but also rebelles, conspirators and tray­tors, to whome no wise state will graunt safeco [...] ­ducte.

Your seconde offer, is that I shoulde ioyne wi [...] you vppon Collatio Carthaginensis, touching whic [...] you haue mine aunswere in my Retentiue against yo [...] moriues.

Your slaunderous and shamelesse complaynt, of o [...] Bishoppes and commissioners oppressing papistes with heauie y [...]ons, & butchers axes, y ^e whole world (if you w [...] giue me leaue to speake so) may knowe to bee false. Their gretest seueritie is lenity, if it be cōpared with po­pishe tyrannic, practised by your Bishoppes and bu [...] ­ning butchers in Queene Maries time.

Your thirde offer is, that I shoulde sende you so [...] of my fellowes or scholers (it is well you require n [...] me to come my selfe) which shall neede no other sa [...] ­conduct, but their quiet and modest behauiour: as the example of some [...]ugitiues hath prooued, all satisfied by your conference, and seeing and hearing your day­ly reading and examination of the scirptures: I aun­swere, if you coulde procure as good a safecondicte [...] Sygismond the Emperor gaue to Iohn Hus & Hiero [...] of Prage, I durst not aduenture to sende them (if h [...] any fellowes or scholers whome I might send) into the handes of Papistes and traytors: much lesse dare I sende or exhorte any, to goe vpon your credite without safe­conduct.

Your fourth offer is, to aunswere such scriptures as I haue alledged in both my bookes, in the next chapter, whereto you shall by the grace of God receiue a reply without any long delay.

Your translation of the bible that you make some [Page 95] [...]omise of, when it commeth foorth, we shall con­ [...]er of it. But where you say, Wee haue serued our [...]ntrie with the olde Testament of the late obstinate Iewes [...]welling, diuiding, and reading, it beeing it selfe but one verse [...] the whole Psalter, and ech other particular booke, and onely [...]sonantes, and to bee rcade according to the tradition of the [...]thfull, which tradition you knowe by your authenticall tran­ [...]tions, and not of the incredulous and per [...]idious &c. you [...]rite both like an ignorant asse, and like an impudent [...]asphemer. For first where you say, y ^e vowelling, diui­ [...]ng, & reading is of y ^e late obstinate Iewes: you declare [...]neither you haue seene nor reade the auncient cōmen­ [...]ries of the Iewes that are extant, in which this vowel­ [...]ng, diuiding, and reading is contayned, nor once haue [...]ard of the most auncient trauell of the Mazorites [...]hich sone after the dispertion of the Iewes, with won­ [...]rful care and diligence, almost vnto superstition haue [...]gistred the vowelling, diuiding, and reading, as it [...]as then receiued, euen from the Patriarkes and Pro­ [...]etes, of euerie verse and worde in the olde Testa­ [...]ent: in so much that if any letter or point by the [...]ult of the writer in the copies which they vsed were [...]ch as might easily be corrected by the Grammer, yet [...]ey durst not amend it, but haue euen so commended [...] vnto vs, as if there bee any learned in that tongue, of [...]hich you make some bragges, they are able to make report vnto you. Again, what a monstuous thing is this, y ^t there should be but one verse or sentence in the whole Psalter, and in ech booke without my distinction or di­uision: you might as well say there is but one worde in euery booke. Againe where you say there bee onely [...]onsonantes, although they that be exercised in the He­ [...]rewe tongue, and in the grammer thereof, can reade [...]ithout the vowelling pointes, yet they cannot alwaies [...]aue certaintie, seeing some words with diuerse points, [...]oe not onely signifie diuerse thinges, but some [...]imes also contrarie thinges. Howe then coulde eue­ [...]ie godly man, exercise him selfe day and night in the [...]tudie of Gods lawe, according to his commandement, [Page 69] when it were not possible for one among an hundreth, to reade it without poyntes and distinctions of senten­ces. Our sauiour Christ in affirming that not so much [...] one iot or point of the law shal perish, doth sufficiently declare, that the lawe of God had vowelling & diuiding pointes as wel as letters consonants. As for your authen­ticall translations you prate of, we knowe that in m [...] ­ny places, they erre not onely by missing the vowell [...], but also by peruerting the consonantes. And if it b [...] so as you threaten in the seconde part of this Chapter, that one of your side shall shortely set foorth a booke, to shewe to the worlde, that the Hebrew and Greek [...] textes, in nothing make for vs, against you, and in ve­rie many thinges make for you against vs, much mo [...]e plainely then your vulgar latine texte, wee haue not serued our countrie amisse in translation of the olde Testament according to the Hebrewe which maketh more for you then your owne vulgar latine, & so much as you say against vs.

But nowe to all your foure offers, I will oppose one more reasonable, more easie, more indifferēt, which without daunger, without suite, without fraude, me thinkes in equitie, you may not refuse. And that is such as I made concerning mine aunswers vnto your popish treatises, prefixed before my Retentiue againste your motiues, that if you will conclude anye con­trouersie of religion that is betweene vs, in the stricte forme of Logicall argumentes (which is the best triall of trueth in matters of doubt) I will aunswere you as breefely, and either shewe plainely the inconsequens of your argument, or else by sufficient authoritie or con­clusion of syllogisme, aduouch y ^e contradiction of your maior or minor, or both, if they both happen to be false. In the meane time if you had rather be respondent then opponent, there is a littell treatise called Syllogisticon that hath beene set foorth by Maister Foxe allmost twentie yeares agoe against transubstantiation and the carnall presence of Christes body in the sacrament of his supper, if your stomak serue you, you may endeuor [Page 97] [...]our selfe to aunswere that chalenge.

The second part.

The firste text cited Ar. 86. Euery man is a lyar, [...]herfore the whole Chuch militant consisting of men, Fulke. [...]hich are al lyars, may erre alltogether.

Against this, Bristowe asketh: Why I doe not saye [...]e Church triumphant: And demaundeth whether [...]at also doe not consist of men: I aunswere, the scrip­ [...]re Psalm. 116. speaketh of men liuing in this worlde, [...]d such as are meere men, lest he should cauill at our [...]uiour Christ, which is a man, and yet not contained [Page 106] in this generall rule. As for the members of the tri­umphant Church, whether they may properly be c [...]l­led men, I will not dispute, but wee speake as the scrip­ture speaketh of men on earth, and the Church o [...] [...]arth. And therefore although it be true, that som [...] men by the gifte of God are veraces, true: yet nere which may not erre. And therefore the absurdi [...] which I gather, Purg. 451. God onely is not true, if [...] Pope cannot erre, is not auoided by saying the Apo­stles cannot erre. For vndoubtedly the Apostles did erre. That their preachings and writings were not er­ronious, it was because they were not theirs, but the enditing of the holy ghoste by them. But that the ho­ly ghost speaketh not so by the Pope, it is manifest by this, that he hath spoken contrary to the spirite of God in the Scriptures, not onely in matters of controuersie betweene him and vs, but also in heresies condemned by both partes.

The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I saye: The true & onely Church of God, hath no such priuilege graunted, but that she may be deceiued in some things: for her know­ledge is vnperfect, & her prophecying is vnperfect. Bri­stowe replyeth, that S. Paul in that speach includeth him selfe: Our knowledge & our prophecying &c. is vnper­fect, whether we speake or write. And sayth, that he tro­weth I will not say, that S. Paul might be deceiued in his writings & epistles: & no more may the Church be, I answere if S. Paul had proceeded further in prophecy­ing, then according to such knowledge as he had by re­uelation, & argumentation out of y ^e scriptures, he might haue erred. That he did not erre in his writings, it was not because it was impossible for him to erre, but be­cause he did write nothing but that he had, either by re­uelation of Iesus Christes spirit, or by argumentation out of the holy scriptures. And therfore, except y ^e church haue such warrant, as the Apostles & elders had by re­uelation & the Scriptures Act. 15. she cannot truely say, It hath beene thought good to y ^e holy ghost & vs.

The 3. text is Ar. 88. where I saye. It is true that S. [Page 107] [...]gustine saith, euen the whole Church is taught to say [...]ry day, Forgiue vs our trespasses. But why so (saith [...]stow) because the whole Church doth erre in her de­ [...]minations euery day? It were ridiculous so to say. [...]t Augustine speake for vs both. ‘ Propter quasdam igno­ [...]tias & infirmitates membrorum suorum, for certaine ig­ [...]rances and infirmities of her members.’ The whole [...]urch for the ignorance of her members must say, for­ [...]ue vs our debts: but the whole Church neede not say [...], except she may be deceiued through the ignorance of [...]r members: therefore the whole church may be decei­ [...]d, Apostles and al: which did not erre in their writings [...]d determinations, because it was impossible for them [...] to doe, whatsoeuer they had written or determined, [...]t because in their writings and determinations, they [...]ere directed by such reuelation, as they had according [...] the holy scriptures.

The 4 text is, that the whole synagogue did erre, but [...]ot the Church of Christ, and that but in a fact, not in [...]octrine, nor the whole synagogue, but a peece onely. [...]hich was the example of Dauid carying the Arke of [...]od vpon a newe Chariot, which should haue ben cary­ [...]d vpon mens shoulders. 1. Chron. 13. So that there be no [...]sse, then three walles saith Bristow betweene y ^e Church [...]nd your shotte. But by the grace of God, I will shewe [...]hat they are al but paper walles, that are erected against the trueth of [...]od, to binde it to the persons or places of men. First (saith Bristowe) it was the synagogue, and not the Church of Christ. Why Bristow, was not the Church of Christ, before Christ came into the flesh? at least remember that S. Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. Al our fa­thers were baptised and communicated w ^t the bodie and bloude of Christ, or else finde vs some other way of sal­uation, then in the bodie of Christ, whose member whosoeuer is not, is sure of damnation: or say that the Iewes being the members of the bodie of Christ, were not the Church of Christ.

The second wal, that this was a fact, and no doctrine, is soone blowne downe if wee doe consider, that the [Page 108] fact had neuer beene attempted, but that it was tho [...] lawfull and Godly, which was an error in doctrine. The thirde wal is, That the whole synagogue erred no [...] For he did not consult with the priest, saith Bristow, w [...] with his Tribunes, Centurions & nobles, but onely w [...] the Lordes temporall, & hereupon he noteth my be [...] ly blindnesse: but much rather may I note his m [...] strous and more then beastly impudence, where the [...] according to his own vulgar translation addeth to th [...] whom he nameth, ‘ Et ait ad omnem coe [...]um Israel. and [...] the whole congregation of Israel. If it please you (quo [...] he) and if the motion be of God, let vs sende vnto [...] rest of our brethren in all the coastes of Israel, and [...] the priestes and Leuits which dwell in the suburbs of the ci [...]ies. y ^t they may be gathered vnto vs, &c.’These (saith Bristowe) were as you woulde say the hedge priestes. Very well, ergo all the heade priestes were present. For otherwise howe coulde it be a perfect congregation of Israel, where there wanted the principall members of the priests, and Leuites, for their tribe and degree? And when he saith, let vs sende to the rest of our brethren, and those which he sent to of that degree were none, but [...] it were hedge Priestes, as Bristowe affirmeth, who will doubt but the chiefe Priestes were present, except hee thinke they were not brethren vnto the rest? But three monethes after, saith Bristowe, hauing founde out his error, he gathered not onely all Israel [...]d Ierusalem, but also the sonnes of Aaron, Sadoc and Abiathar, &c. [...] though they were no part of Israel. But these (saith Bri­stowe) he gathered as two Bishoppes, and six other, as it were Archdeacons, and said vnto them: ‘You that are the heades of the Leuiticall families, prepare your selues with your brethren, and bring the Arke of our Lorde God of Israel, to the place which is dressed for it: least that as before, because you were not present, our Lord did sm [...]te vs, so nowe also it happen for our vnlawfull doing.’ The words that Bristowe taketh holde off in his vulgar translation, are that these principall priestes and Leu [...]tes were not present, which as before it is proued [Page 109] [...]e, so are they not in y ^e Hebrew text LO ATT [...]M, No [...] [...]the verbe is vnderstood, which is in y ^e sentēce before: [...]t omitted, which now they were commaunded to do, [...]t is, to carie the Arke: So the sense is, because you did [...] carie it, and not, because you were absent. For beside [...]t hath beene saide before, of all the cheefe Priestes in [...]nerall, howe coulde it be saide, that Aminadab one of [...] sixe was absent, when the Arke was first brought [...]t of his house, who if he had not ben deceiued, should [...]ue tolde the king of his error before?

The 5. text is Ar. 86. where I say, the true and onely [...]rch of Christ can neuer be voide of Gods spirite, and ye [...] she [...] [...]y erre from the trueth, and be deceiued in some thinge [...]: [...]uen [...]there is no true Christian man that is voide of Gods spirite, ye [...] [...]y euery true Christian erre, &c. This my sophisme (saith [...]istowe) consisteth in speaking confusely of Gods spi­ [...]e, as though the gift of it were one, in y ^e whole church, [...]d in euery particular true Christian man. But I say, [...]t, cleane contrarie to that he chargeth me, I distin­ [...]ish of the gift of the spirite of God concerning adop­ [...]n, that is in euery one of the faithfull, by which hee [...] priuiledged from erring vnto damnation: and the [...]rite of trueth which is not giuen in such measure ei­ [...]r to the whole Church, or to euery member, but that [...]ey may erre in some thinges, though not finally in [...]atters necessarie vnto saluation. As for the promise, [...]ohn 14. ver. 16. of the comforter euen the spirit of truth, to remaine with vs for euer, and to leade vs into al truth: If the later bee not restored to the Apostles, howe can Bristowe proue, that it must needes bee vnderstoode of [...]e whole Church onely, and not of euery member s [...]g our sauiour Christ, Iohn 17. prayeth not onely for [...]is Apostles, but for all and euery one that should be­ [...]eeue in him, through their preaching, that they might [...]e sanctified in the trueth, which is the worde of God. [...]nd euē in y ^e verie place cited, Iohn 14. ver. 15. promiseth [...]he comforter the spirite of trueth, to euerye one [...]hat beleeueth in him. And as he sent his spirite to leade [...]he Apostles into all trueth, so his Apostles fayled not [Page 110] to deliuer that trueth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subiect to forgetful [...] and corruption then the other. Wherefore the Church [...] called the piller of trueth. 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil [...] vpon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles. Ep [...] 2. which had the whole trueth of the gospel reuealed [...] to them, not because the Church shoulde haue the spi­rite of trueth, to reueale any trueth vnto her, which w [...] not reuealed to the Apostles, and by them as well i [...] their writings, as in their preachings. So that the sa [...] gift of the spirite being in the whole Church, that is i [...] euerie member, and distinct from the gift of the spirite in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing, the argument by me set downe, is sound & no sophisme at all.

2 That the Church may be diuorced.

I neuer saide that y ^e true & Catholike church of Christ Bristowe. may be diuorced from him, but the visible & particular [...]ulk [...]. Church of some place, & time, as the prophet Esay com­plaineth that the church of Ierusalem, by idolatrie & su­perstition, had separated her selfe from Christ, & was refu­sed of him, Esa. 1. How is y ^e faithfull citie become an ha [...] ­lot? &c. And so may y ^e prophet say to y ^e church of Rome. Brist. asketh, whether y ^e prophet do say so to Rome? yea [...]erely. For y ^e idolatrie of Rome is nothing lesse, in this time then it was in his time of Ierusalē. But I am too too ig­norant (Bristow saith) in the scriptures, if I know not herein the difference betweene the synagogue of the Iewes and the Church of Christ, to wit that the synagogue with her Ierusalē might & shuld be diuorced, but the Church of Christ with her Ierusalem (which is Rome saith Bristow) if you haue any sight in the Actes of the A­postles should neuer, nor neuer might be diuorced, &c. If mine ignorance be so great, why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me, y ^t the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation, consisting of the Gentiles, may not as wel be separated from him, as the Church of Christ be­fore his incarnation, consisting of the Iewes? As for [Page 111] [...] diuorcement you imagine of all the whole on the [...]th, it neuer was ne shalbe. Againe, that Rome is the [...]usalem of the Church of Christ, where finde you in [...]c Acts of the Apostles, which haue so good sight in [...]em? I gesse this is your argument: S. Luke beginneth [...]s stor [...]e at Ierusalem, and endeth at Rome: ergo Rome the Ierusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you [...]n proue the consequens of this argument, I wil say as [...]ou say. In the meane time, I say there is small likely­ [...]od that Rome should be the Ierusalem of the Church [...]f Christ, seeing Peter being at Rome, is not once mēti­ [...]ed in all the Actes of the Apostles, nor in any other [...]ooke of holy scripture. But if you had as great sight [...] the Epistle to the Galathians, as you imagine your [...]lfe to haue in the Actes of the Apostles, there might [...]ou learne Cap. 4. that the Ierusalem of the Church of [...]hrist, is not Rome on earth, but Ierusalem which is a­ [...]o [...]e, which is the mother of vs all. As for the reiecting [...]f the Iewes, and calling of the Gentiles euen vntill the [...]lnesse and the restoring of y ^e Iewes, of which you pro­ [...]hecy without the booke, y ^t they shalbe al Christened in [...]e end of the world, are matters impertinēt, to this que­ [...]tion of the visible Churches diuorcement.

3 That euen the Church of Christ shoulde prepare the way Bristowe. [...]o Antichrist.

This, saith Bristow, is a straunge imagination of him Fulk [...]. and his fellowes, It is the totall summe of all their new diuinitie, yet no warrant at all they haue for it out of the scripture.

But I pray you Bristowe, who euer saide, that the Church of Christe prepared the way to Antichrist? I said Ar. 35. Manie abuses entred into y ^e Church of Christ im­mediately after y ^e Apostles time: which y ^e diuel planted as a preparatiue for antichrist. Do I not here plainely say y ^e diuell planted them as a preparatiue? Againe Ar. 38. I saide, The scripture telleth vs that the mysterie of ini­quitie preparing for the generall defection, and [Page 112] reuelation of Antichrist wrought euen in S. Paules tim [...] 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth, that, general, is my wor [...] and not saint Paules: I confesse, but it is S. Paules m [...] ning, which speaketh not of a small or particular, but [...] that great and generall defection, which in other pa [...] of scripture is foreshewed to bee from Christ vnto An­tichrist. Apoc. 13. & 17. and yet not so generall, but th [...] Christ shall haue his Church still vpon earth. Secondl [...] he demaundeth whether the scripture tell me, that it wr [...]ug [...] in the Church of Christ: and aunswereth himselfe, no word [...] so. [...] wrought in the persecuters &c. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so? Is open persecution a myste [...]i [...] of iniquitie? You say better in the seducers, and where began the seducers, but in the visible Church, although they be no members of the true and Catholike Church [...] That our heresie is the last, or next the last before the re­uelation, before you goe about to shewe, as you promise, you must proue it to bee an heresie, otherwise then the religion of Christ, was or the Infidels, Iewes, & Gentile [...], called an heresie.

I neuer saide so, but after diuerse authorities and re [...] ­sons [...]lke. brought to shewe, howe the worlde accounteth of the Church: I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in th [...] sight of God and his sancts, is most glorious and honorable, so in the sight of the worlde it hath alwayes beene most base and con­temptible. To the scriptures I alledge 1. Cor. [...]. Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the crosse, and Christ crucified thereon, which are all the glorie of the Church, are condemned of the worlde, Bristowe saith, that may be, and yet the Church not be in their sight a contemptible companie, no more then the olde Romanes and Turkes are to vs, though we contemne their religion. I aunswere, I speake of the con­tempt of the Church, & not of the persons of men, which often times are great Emperors and princes of the world.

To the place Matth. 10. You shal be hated of all men [Page 113] [...]r my names sake. Bristowe inferreth the company that [...] hated is not alwayes contemptible. I confesse, neither [...]id I bring that texte, but to shewe the perpetuall hatred [...]f the world against the Church. But Cyprian writeth, [...]hat Decius was more patient to heare that an Emperor [...]as set vp against him, then that an other priest should [...]e ordeined at Rome in the place of Fabianus. This saith [...]ristowe, was not contempt, but of feare. Although I [...]eny not, but tyrants feare the church of God, more then [...]hey haue cause in respect of their earthly kingdome: [...]t it followeth not, but they do also contemne it, and [...]inke their power greater and their glorie superior vn­t [...] it. And in the example of Decius, his indignation was [...]he greater, because the base and contemptible compa­ [...]y of the Church, as he esteemed them, durst choose an [...]ther Bishop, after he had slaine Fabianus, purposing to [...]estroy the Church vtterly.

That I alledge, 1. Cor. 1. Not many wise men, &c. He [...]yeth it was so in the beginning of the Church, but not [...]lwayes. And so I do blindly alledge the text againste [...]y selfe: Because afterwarde the text saith, the wise them­ [...]lues and the strong were confounded, that is to saye conuerted. [...] deede, if confusion and conuersion be all one, it is [...]mewhat that you saye: but howe will the text beare, [...]at (beside y ^e improprietie of the speach) that God hath [...]osen the foolishe things of the worlde, that he might [...]onuert the wisemen; and the weake, that he might con­ [...]ert the strong? Last of all God hath chosen the inno­ [...]e and contemptible things of the worlde, and those [...]hings which are not, that he might destroy those things [...]at are. As you say, to confound, is to conuert, so you here best saye, to destroy is to saue, or else you cannot [...]rooue the multitude of wise, noble, and honourable [...]ersons, that God hath chosen to be greater, then those [...]hat are reiected. As for the textes of Esay 60. & 10. [...]ited by you and mee, speake of the spirituall glorye of the Church, not deliuering her from the contemptof the worlde, where and among whome shee is a stran­ger.

Concerning the inuisiblenes of the church, Bristowe Bristowe sayeth, I alledge so as no sober man would: so that [...]e­like Fulke. he wil driue me to purge my self of drunkennesse, as the Apostles were fain [...] to do [...]. Act 2. But what saye [...] not sounding of sobr [...]tie? One while, that the vniuer­sall church of Christ, is not seene at all of men, because it is in heauen, Gal. 4. And here he asketh, if euery mem­ber be not in heauē, as the Apostle fayth, Our conuersa­tion is in heauen: Phil. 3. and Peter the Apostle w [...] seene of all men. I answere, although men be seene i [...] earth, yet their conuersation which is in heauen, is not seene; nor they them selues as they are in heauen with Christ which is our life, Col. 3. ver. 3. &c. So much mo [...] the vniuersall church, being a spirituall coniunction o [...] all the members vnto Christ their head in heauen, is no [...] to be seene with bodily eyes vpon earth.

But another while I say, Ar. 80. it sufficeth, that the church be knowne to Christ the head; as he sayeth, My sheepe heare my voice, and I know them; and to them y ^• be the members of the same body. Here Bristowe qua­relleth w ^t me: if your text import, that it sufficeth to be knowne to the head, why doe you iumble in the mem­bers afterward? whether he be sober that vnderstande [...] not a copulatiue proposition, let wise men iudge. And yet the text proueth as wel the sheepe to knowe one an­other by hearing Christes voice, as Christe knowi [...]g them by his diuine election and prouidence. But B [...] ­stowe so great a craftes man of good conclusions, d [...] ­deth this consequence: Christ knoweth his sheepe, [...] the church (forsooth) may be inuisible: and so he may, for it is of his owne making, and not of mine. I had no more to proue, but that Christ should not be head of an vnknowen body, because he knoweth his owne body and the members knowe one another, although nei­ther he nor they be knowen vnto the worlde.

Yet another while I alledge, that though not alway [...], [Page 115] [...]et at one certeine time, it should become inuisible, at [...]he comming of Antichrist, or rather when Antichrist [...]ath preuailed, I speake of the church in this world, & of the inuisiblenes vnto the wicked world, what scrip­ [...]ures haue you for that? sayth Bristowe, Ar. 27. & 77. It [...]as propheci [...]d, that the church should flye into the Wildernesse. The defection which saint Paul speaketh of, concerning the churches inuisiblenesse, I haue pro­ [...]ed, howe substantiall the argument is before, Cap. 7. Par. 4. But nowe Bristowe opposeth scriptures to proue, [...]hat the church in y ^e time of Antichrist should be both [...]isible and vniuersall; For there shalbe preaching all the time of persecution by the true witnesses, Apoc. 11. euen 1260. dayes, or 42. monethes, which commeth to three yeares and an halfe. But after they be slaine and [...]lye vnburied 3. dayes and an halfe; which is also the time of Antichristes tyranny, and the greatest ruffe of [...]is crueltie, who shall preache then openly against An­tichrist? for of such preaching we speake. But lest you should imagine these dayes to be common dayes of 24. houres long, as you seeme to doe of the 1260. dayes &c. you may see, that the inhabitants of the earth, could not haue time to publish their death and send giftes, &c. in so short a season as three dayes and an halfe of naturall dayes account. But you say the preaching shall be as generall as the persecution. That cannot be of so smal 2 number of witnesses. For that you quote Apoc. 14. pertaineth to the time of Antichristes consumption to­warde the end, and his final destruction, for immediatly followeth the Angell, shewing the fall of Babylon.

Last of all, you obiect Apoc. 20. that the persecutors being in number as the sande of the Sea, shall ouer the wide worlde compasse the campe of the faithfull, & the citie of God: therfore the church shal be at the same time vniuersal, & super latitudinem terrae. I doubt not but the church shalbe vniuersall in her greatest straits, & disper­sed ouer all the earth, when shee is fled into the wilder­nes, which signifieth her desolate condition, & not her place wout the world but neither of both is proued by y ^e [Page 116] text before alledged. For it followeth not, although th [...] enimies with their multitude shall come vp, and as it were couer the face of the earth, and so compasse the campe of the faithfull, and the beloued citie: that ther­fore the campe of the faithfull and the beloued citie is as large and as many in number, as their enimies: when experience proueth the contrary, at this daye, if all that be baptized were true Christians, and the Church of Christ, yet are they nothing in multitude, in compari­son of the Turkes and Infidels: wherfore for any thing that is here shewed, the Church should be inuisible to the worlde, when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyrannie.

Namely of their church and of ours: by conference of places Bristowe. that are about Antichrist. That neither Antichrist nor the a­postasie agreeth to Bon [...]face the third.

Being demaunded, Ar. 35. what yeare the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed: I answere, that although Fu [...]ke. many abuses and corruptions entred into the Church of Christ, immediatly after the Apostles time, which the diuell planted, as a preparatiue for his eldest sonne Antichrist: yet we may well saye, that the religion of Papistes came in and preuailed, that yeare in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation, which was 607. when Boniface the third, for a great summe of money, obteined of Phocas the murthering Emperour, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted▪ the head of all the church: which diuelish heresie in­creased vntill the yeare of our Lorde 1414. when the councell of Constance decreede that [...]acrilege of the communion in one kinde.

Likewise, Ar. 16. After I had shewed the persecution of the true Church vntill Constantine, and soone after by the Arrians, then the ouerthrowe of the Empire by the barbarous, hereticall & idolatrous nations: I conclude, But when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the West, seduced the world with most detestable heresi [...], then was [Page 117] fulfilled that which was reuealed to S. Iohn, Apo [...]. 12. The wo­man clothed with the Sunne, which is the Church, was so perse­cuted by the dragon, that shee fled into the Wildernesse, there t [...] remaine a long season.

These sayings of mine, Bristowe rehearseth, cut off in the wast, as though I referred the dragons persecution, only to the Pope: which I say plainly began before, but was most perfect concerning the apostasie, in the raigne of the popish Antichrist. Againe, he sayeth, I doe apply this prophesie onely, because of the Popes primacy [...] which is false, but because of his false doctrine and he­resie also. For that he sayeth the Popes primacie is a trueth of the Gospell, and practised before Bonifacius, [...]he referreth vs for proofe to Saunders tray terous booke of Monarchie, and I for aunswere, will send the reader [...]o my ouerthrowe of his Romish Rocke. The suppo­ [...]ed contradictions I referre alwayes to the proper place, Cap. 11.

But, O sir, where is the Scripture that you promised [...]o bring so cleare? &c. sayth Bristowe. Sir my promise was, for articles of doctrine in controuersie between vs, [...]nd not for the fulfilling of euery prophesie, which the [...]ffect must better expound oftentimes, then the words.

But furthermore (sayth Bristow) you make shewe of a [...]ext which is against you, and vse most detestable fal­ [...]ification, saying the Church should remaine in the wildernesse a long season, but the text is cleane contra­ [...]y, a very short season. Say you so, Bristowe? where haue you these wordes in the text, a very short season? But you haue 1260. dayes, and a time, two times, and [...]alfe a time. And can you tell vs the length of these [...]imes or of the dayes either? In the weekes of Daniell, [...]nto whome you referre the exposition of the two times (for you haue not two times, but times indefinitely in the reuelation) the propheticall dayes are as long as common yeres. As for the time, two times, and halfe a [...]ime, who is able to define the length of them?

But by Scripture you will proue a very short season, and first you iumble together, two diuerse prophecies, [Page 118] of Apoc. 12. & 20. of the loosing of Satan for a short sea­son. Why man? short and long be Relatiues. The time of Satans loosing is short, in comparison, either of the long time that he was bound, or of the long and eter­nall time in which he shall remaine in perpetuall bon­dage. For though Antichrist raigned in open reuela­tion, and not in mysterie of iniquitie onely, by the space of 807. yeares, more or lesse, and yet be not vtter­ly consumed, but yet in his consumption: Neuerthe­lesse, for a whole 1000. yeares after Christ, the gospell of saluation continued in the church, though much de­filed with superstition, yet sounde in the onely founda­tion, Christe, openly testified by sundry publike tea­chers, vntill Syluester the seconde, Anno Domini 1000. by the diuell him selfe (as euen the Popish stories con­fesse) was put in possession of the See of Rome, & then was the church driuen into greater straightes then euer before; the doctrine of saluation being turned into idolatry and blasphemie.

But it is monstrous, that Bristow expoundeth the con­summation of the 1000. yeares, by the gospell, speaking of the consummation of the worlde, Matt. 24. Marke 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and Ierusalem, with the ende of the worlde. And where he citeth Matth. 42. sta [...]i [...] post, streight after the persecution of those short dayes, considering that from the destruction of Ierusalem vn­to the ende of the worlde, so many hundreth yeares are passed, he might learne at the lest, not to measure the length and shortnesse of times, by mens reckonings, but to remember, that with the Lorde a thousand yeres are as a day, and a day as a thousand yeares, 2. Pet. 3.

His other patching of Centones, like Valentini­ans, in steede of conserence of scripture, because they consist of his onely assertion, without reason or autho­ritie, I neede not to confute. As that the dayly sacri­fice, which Daniel prophecieth, should be taken awaye by the death of Christe, Daniel the 9. &. 12. he ex­poundeth it of the sacrifice of the Masse; By the which [Page 119] [...]aint Paul prophecied, that wee shoulde announce our [...]ordes death: as though Saint Paul spake that of a sa­ [...]rifice, and not expresse of eating that bread and drin­ [...]ing that cuppe of the Lorde.

Like wise, speaking of the abomination of desolati­ [...]n, he sayeth: Daniel agreeth with the gospell & the [...]pocalips, where he sayeth: Daniel 12. From the time [...]hen the dayly sacrifice shalbe taken away, and the ab­ [...]omination set vp for desolation, dayes 1290. Blessed is [...]e that expecteth and cometh to dayes 1335. What a­greement is betwene 1260. dayes and these two num­ [...]ers? beside that Daniel 9. the Angel sheweth, that [...]he abhominatian of desolation in the temple, and the [...]esolation shall continue euen to the consummation [...]nd end.

Last of all, he will prooue, that the season is short, [...]ut of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians, that they be not troubled as though the [...]ay of the Lorde were then instant, for Antichrist must [...]irst be reuealed. And then in deede (sayeth Bristowe) [...]he day of our Lorde is instant. And howe knowe you [...]hat? For our Lorde Iesus Christe (sayeth he) will kill [...]im with the breath of his mouth. What immediatly, Bristowe? so soone as he is shewed openly, will you [...]llowe him no time, to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signes and wonders? shall he be killed be­fore he haue practised all deceite of vnrighteousnes in them that perish, to whome God shall [...]ende the effi­cacie of errour, that they may beleeue lying, that all they which haue not beleeued the trueth, but had plea­sure in vnrighteo [...]snesse may be condemned? This will aske a longer time, then three yeares and an halfe of the Sunnes reuolution, or 42. months of the Moones circuite. It is not one mannes person or age that can suffice to deceiue all them that haue not beleeued the trueth.

His last conceite, in distinguishing the apostasie from the reuealing of Antichrist, by the token giuen of y ^e abolishing of the Romane Empire, which should come [Page 120] to passe before the reuealing, but not before the apo­stasie, because it is his owne drousie imagination, with­out grounde, I will not vouchsafe to confute, especially, seeing the Apostle ver. 3. ioyneth the Apostasie and the reuelation immediately together.

Whether Antichrist or the Apostasie agree to the Pro­testantes. Bristowe.

In this title is nothing but surmises, wherof he him Fulke. selfe is vncerteine: but for one place in the Apocalipse he would saye, vnder the churches leaue, that our here­sie is the apostasie, the place is in the first V [...] of the Lo­custes, and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9. where some­things agree, and other things agree not, &c. But let him looke on the commentarie of Bullinger, Alphonsus, Chytraeus, Iohn Bale, and other, and he shal finde a nee­rer agreement of that kingdome to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts, the Monkes and Fryers, then he can imagine vnto vs. I passe ouer the abomination of de­solation, which one while he maketh Luthers and Cal­uins inuentions; another while, the kings armes set in place of the moste sweete and glorious roode; yea, the image of a vile grassehopper in a church that is well knowen, which is an vmbraticall desolation, as the ima­ges of Iupiter and the Emperors were in the temple &c. matters to be laughed at, although perhaps he lye, be­cause he dare not name the church, or else is afrayd it should be refourmed, if any vaine painter hath set vp such images. And yet what more common in Poperye, then not onely to paint, but also to carue the images of kings, and noble mens armes, euen vpon the roodeloft of the Churches, where they were patrones? At last hee challengeth mee to ioyne with him vppon his last de­maund, which is apostasie, vnto which I haue aunswered long since. Finally, he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist, by the commentarie which the scrip­ture it selfe makes. ‘The seuen heads are seuen hilles, vppon which the woman sitteth:’ And they are seuen [Page 121] kings: whereof fiue are falne, which are the persecu­ [...]ing kings, before the time when this was spoken. What then? One is presently, who therefore is ment of the Romane Emperors, and all other kings persecuting with them. The other is not yet come, and when he commeth, he must remaine a short season, who euident­ly is Antichrist in proper person.

This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope: Nay (sayth Bristowe) for he must remaine not a long season, as the fiue, and as the one, but a short season, on­ly three yeares and an halfe. But where haue you the length of his continuance compared with the fiue and one? All the time of the Churches persecution is but short, in comparison of the infinite comfort, that she shal haue euerlastingly, though it be long in the iudge­ment of fleshe and blood, measuring the time by the breuitie of mans life, and the seasons of this worlde, as Bristowe doeth the three yeares and an halfe. But this is worthie to be noted, that he expoundeth the sixt king for the whole state of Romane Emperors, and o­ther persecuting kings, as he doeth the fiue kings that were past, and yet against all reason and analogie, wold haue the seuenth (which is antichrist) to be one singular man, so to auoide, that the whole rabble of Popes can­not be antichrist. Nowe followeth the exposition of the tenne hornes, which are tenne kings, which haue not yet taken kingdome, but they shall take power as kinges euen in one houre with the beast, that is, toge­ther with Antichrist (sayth he) to serue him as his feede knights. I maruell whether he will not expound the houre in this place for the 24. part of a naturall daye. For otherwise wee see by histories, that the aduaunce­ment of the Pope, was the decay of the Empire in the West, and with him arose a multitude of kings in eue­ry prouince, which before were subiect to one Empe­rour.

And so you see euidently (sayth Bristowe) by these seuen hilles, thus expounded, that the woman which sitteth vpon them, is not so little a one, as you do make her, but that shee is Mun­dus [Page 122] impiorum: the whole worlde of wicked men. But where do we see this euident exposition of the seuen hilles? wee haue seene the exposition of the seuen heades, to bee seuen kings, and also seuen hills: but we see no exposi­tion of the hills, who must needs be taken in their pro­per sense, because they are the exposition of anothe [...] figuratiue speach, namely seuen heades. But the woman (you say,) is no little one, which sitteth on the seuen hilles, but the worlde of wicked men. Let the holye ghost I pray you expounde the woman, as well as the heades of her beast. ‘And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth.’ This is a cleare exposition of the whore of Babylon, the woman; and as cleare a descripti­on of the citie of Rome, which in that time, had the kingdome ouer the kinges of the earth, and is the ci­tie builded vppon seuen hilles, before expounded to be one of the significations of the seuen heades, a perse­cuter of the sainctes vnder the Emperors, and a poisone [...] and persecutor of the Church vnder the Popes. And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition, which I will prooue by this reason. The whore of Babylon is a great citie, hauing dominion ouer y ^e kings of the earth: but the whole worlde of wicked men is not a great ci­tie, hauing dominion ouer the kinges of the earth: ther­fore the whore of Babylon is not the whole worlde of wicked men. Againe, The whore of Babylon is a citie situated vpon seuen hilles: The whole worlde of wic­ked men is not a citie situate vppon seuen hils: therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wic­ked men.

The third part.

I saide. Purg. 44 [...]. It is no good logike, to conclude Fulke. [Page 123] negatiuely of any one place or booke of scripture: yet [...]ontrarie to mine owne rule, (Bristow saith) I conclude [...]egatiuely out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth [...]one other comfort, to moderate the mourning of the faithfull, but onely the quiet rest of them that are a­sleepe in the Lord, and y ^e hope of their glorious resurrec­ [...]ion: ergo there is no comfort in praying for their soules. [...] aunswere, mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen, which citeth that place to prooue, that as immo­derate mourning, is against the hope of the resurrectiō, so being ioyned with praiers and almes, it hath the liue­ly hope of life in those that sleepe in peace. This aduan­tage Bristowe hath, by rending and tearing mine argu­mentes from the bodie of my booke, that it cannot bee perceiued, vppon what ground I vse them. Neuerthe­lesse hauing often before in that aunswere to Allen, protested that hee coulde bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the deade, this argu­ment is to be referred to the same conclusion, after this manner. If in most conuenient place, the holy ghost [...]oyne not prayer and almes to moderate mourning for the departed, then doeth he ioyne them in no place: but in most cōuenient place he ioineth not: ergo in no place. The maior is prooued by the wisedome of Gods spirit, which alwayes choseth that which is most conuenient: the minor is manifest and granted: ergo the conclusion is true. But Bristowe asketh me if I preaching to mode­rate the mourning of the faithfull, vse none other com­fort then these two? I answere him concerning the state of the departed, I vse none other proper places of cōfort but these two, the hope of their glorious resurrection, & their quiet rest in the meane time. But S. Paul, saith Bri­stowe, speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death, although he name them that are asleepe in the Lorde. If they sleepe in the Lord, they are not onely at rest, but in happinesse. Can you interprete to sleepe in the Lord, to be in hellish torments, such as you faine your purgatorie paines to be? Are they not blessed which die in y ^e Lord? The Pro­phet Esay saith, cap. 57. of y ^e righteous after their death, y ^t [Page 124] there shalbe peace, they shall rest in their beddes: Ergo, they that sleepe in the Lord, enioy a quiet rest.

The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul reher­seth what he receiued and deliuered concerning the sa­crament, but oblation for the dead, he rehearseth no [...] ergo he neither receiued nor deliuered it. So you make (sayth Bristowe) as though the Apostle there prescri­beth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he sayeth afterwarde, of setting other things in order. I answere, that obiection is auoided in the same place immediatly after, Pur. 362. & therefore I will not here repete the answere. And that it is not of one place ne­gatiuely, you your selfe here confesse, that I denye it to be written by any of the Euangelistes which entreat of the sacrament. But you are not ashamed to affirme, that the Apostle intended no more in that place, but to correct the sinne of vnworthie receiuing, vppon coulot of a place of Augustine, ‘ Ep. ad Ian. 118. Cap. 3. Inde enim. For that respect, the Apostle also sayeth, that they re­ceiue it vnworthily, who do not by a reuerence singu­larly dewe, discerne it from other meates, as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first E­pistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently conside­red.’ Doth Augustine say, or can any man proue out of his saying, that he ment, that S. Paul intended no more, but to correct the sinne of the vnworthie receiuing? But admitt it were so, how could he better correct that sinne, then by shewing the whole institution, substantiall matter and fourme, ende and vse of that sacrament, and so he doth, although ceremonies and externall obseruations about it, he doth not expresse.

The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer. 19. which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diuerse other ordinances concerning the dead, in which was no sacrifice, or prayer for the dead was offred, but that they were so separated from the li­uing, that the priestes might haue nothing to do with them but in speciall cases. Bristowe sayeth, I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buryed. In [Page 125] [...]eede so to conclude, were to conclude of one place [...]egatiuely, but I presuppose my former assertion, that [...]n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead, no not in those which conteine [...]peciall order for the dead. I adde further, that the [...]riest to whō specially offering of sacrifice perteineth, [...]s so separated from the dead, that he is forbidden to [...]ourne for them, much more to offer sacrifice for thē, [...]r to pray for them, which can not be without lamen­ [...]ation for their miserable estate &c.

From these particular places, I come to the whole [...]awe, and conclude negatiuely thus: All lawfull sacri­ [...]ices were prescribed by the lawe: Sacrifice for the dead [...]as not prescribed by the lawe: therfore it was no law­ [...]ull sacrifice. The answere he sayth is by returning it [...]ppon my selfe, but in deede hee maketh it by denying [...]he minor: affirming that sacrifice for the dead was pre­ [...]cribed vnder the name of sacrifice for sinne. I might [...]ere reply, out of your owne doctrine, that not the [...]uiltinesse, but the paine of sinne is in many to be pur­ [...]ed, which haue obteyned remission of all their sinnes, [...]ither by Popes pardon, or priestes absolution, or by [...]ods forgiuenesse vnto the penitent. But I will fol­ [...]owe the argument I shewed that the forme of sacrifice [...]as such, as could not be offered but of the liuing or [...]or the liuing, because they are commaunded in all sa­ [...]rifice for sinne generally to lay their hand vppon the head of the beast to be sacrificed. Hereunto Bristowe replyeth, that this grosse absurditie would follow, that [...]acrifice for sinne could not be offered, but of thē that were present: therefore not for the children, the sicke, [...]or captiues, for kings and cities of the world vncircum­ [...]ised, and diuerse other sortes. I reioygne, that no sacri­ [...]ices for sinne, but sacrifices of thanksgiuing or prospe­ [...]ities, coulde be offred for the absent: and especially for the vncircumcised which could not haue remission of sinnes, before they were ingraffed into the people of God, but temporall benefites at the prayers of Gods people they might obteine. As for children, sicke, [Page 126] captiues, &c. they might haue remission of sinnes without sacrifice, which was but the Sacrament there­of, as well in their childhoode, sickenesse, captiuitie, when they coulde not offer according to the lawe, as in time of desolation and destruction of the Tem­ple, when no sacrifice for sinne coulde be offered by any or for any, but onely in the place where the taberna­cle or temple was. Wherefore the sacrifice of Iudas Ma­chabaeus wheresoeuer hee learned it, hath no warrant i [...] the law.

The fourth argumēt, of the whole scripture negatiue­ly to conclude, I saide it is good logike, after this man­ner. All true doctrine is taught in the scripture: Pur­gatorie is not taught in the scripture: therefore purgato­rie is no true doctrine. Bristowe denyeth both the ma­ior and minor. The maior I haue prooued in this chap­ter, part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scrip­ture. The minor hee would prooue to be false by these reasons. First purgatorie is taught in the scripture in the Machabees, Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church, which I also confesse, to be the true Church in the thirde counce [...] of Carthage, and therefore it is canonicall, if any other scrip­ture be Canonicall. Supposing that which is false, that the Macabees were canonicall, yet is not Purgatorie proo­ued by them: prayer for the deade doeth not necessa­rily drawe purgatorie after it. The Grecians of longe time haue vsed prayer for the deade, yet they doe not re­ceiue the doctrine of purgatorie. But to prooue the Machabees to be Canonical, he citeth the third councel of Carthage, wherein the two bookes of Machabees are accounted amongest the rest. But there are also fiue bookes of Salomon, whereas wee knowe there are onely three, namely the Prouerbes, the Canticles and the Preacher. Therefore that canon prooueth a ma­nifest error of the councell to allowe fiue bookes of Salomon in steede of three. Let Bristowe now bring out the fourth and fifth booke of Salomon, and say they bee Canonicall, if any other scripture bee Cano nicall.

[Page 127] The Councell of Laodicea more auncient, nameth not the Machabees. Hierome a Priest of Rome ex­pressely denyeth them to bee Canonicall, Praefatione [...]n Prouerbia. Ruffinus also, in his exposition of the Creede, affirmeth the Church not to receiue them as Canonicall: beside so many argumentes as the bookes them selues, doe minister which agree, that they were writen by the spirite of man, and not by the spirite of God.

To proceede, Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainely 1. Iohn 5. that I could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie, that wee may not praye for all men liuing. I saide in deede we ought not to pray for them that sinne vnto death, of which Iohn saith: I say not that you shoulde pray for it, or that any man should pray for it, as your vulgar trās­lation hath it: But howe it is prooued out of that place, he saith neuer a worde.

Last of all purgatorie is taught (saith Bristowe) Spe­cially against you sir. Iohn 11. For you say after your manner pas­sing confidently, that Martha and Marie (as the scripture is ma­nifest) did not hope for any restitution of their brother Laza­rus to his bodie, before the generall resurrection. If that bee so manifest, what else was it then but the rest of his soule that Mar­tha woulde haue Christ to pray for, when shee saide thus, vnto him: But also nowe I knowe that what soeuer thinges, thou shalte aske of God, God will graunt thee? To which purpose also some auncient writers expounde the place. Thus farre Bri­stowe. But I pray you sir, why doe you not tell vs the names at least of those auncient writers that so ex­pounde the place; Peraduenture they were not worth the naming. But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis, to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie be­fore the comming of Christe, to all times after? as though I sayd, that they neuer hoped for their brothers restitution, because they hoped not before Christe came to Bethanie, as Allen impudently coniectu­reth, that Lazatus was restored to his bodye at their [Page 128] prayers made at his tombe: where there is no mention of any prayers, but of lamentation only. I can not tel whether I shuld here require in you more wit or hone­stie, or else lesse impudence, & malice. But this was your purpose of cauilling and quarilling, when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plaine or­der as I aunswered Allen, but in this confuse manner, to bring all my argumentes first out of ioynt, and then to play with them at your pleasure.

2 Ab authoritate scripturae, affirmatiuè First about cer­taine Bristowe. foundations of purgatorie, and prayer for the dead.

I saide, the worde of God ouerthroweth the popish distinction of sinnes mortall & Veniall, shewing that Fulke. all sinnes of their owne nature deserue eternall death: and yet all by the mercie of God are pardonable or ve­niall, except the sinne against the holy ghost. Bristowe saith, that I here graunt the doctrine, and yet deny the distinction: which is vtterly false: for, that all sinnes de­serue eternall death, and yet be pardonable, it ouer­throweth the doctrine and distinction both. For the Papistes holde, y ^t there are some sinnes so small, as they deserue not in their owne nature eternal damnation, as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth, where he de­nieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all thinges written in the lawe, extendeth not vnto eternall death, saying that hanging on tree, or crucifying is not eternal death, and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21.

Againe, euery one, in the saying of the Apostle, is not meant of Christians, but of them, which trust in the lawe it selfe &c. Doe you not heare playnely the olde serpentes voyce, Nequaquam moriemini: Tush you shall not die, the curse of God doeth not bring eter­nall death, you neede not be so greatly affraide of it, &c? But where learned you Bristowe, that the curse of God, which is vppon him that hangeth on tree, is not a visible token, that hee deserueth eternall death? Is [Page] [...]ot the text plaine against you, Deut. 21. ‘When a man [...]ath sinned worthy of death, and is iudged to death, & [...]anged on the tree, his carcase shall not remaine vppon [...]e tree, but shalbe buryed the same day, for he is accur­ [...]d of God that is hanged on the tree: therefore thou [...]alt not defile the lande which the Lord thy God hath [...]iuen thee to possesse.’ He is not therefore accursed, be­ [...]ause he is hanged on the tree, if he were innocent; but [...]ecause he hath sinned worthie of death, & so is hanged: [...] which respecte our sauiour Christ, being hanged on [...]e tree, though most innocent in his owne person, [...]et bearing the guiltinesse of all our sinnes, became [...]ccursed for vs, not to discharge vs of such a curse [...] did not bring eternall death (but by your imagi­ [...]tion might fall vppon an innocent person) but [...] redeeme vs from the curse of the lawe, whiche wee [...]aue incurred more then tenne thousand times through [...]r manifolde sinnes and transgressions. And that [...]e curse pronounced Deuteronom. 27. bringeth with it [...]e payne of eternall death, I wishe euerie man [...]at will not bee deceyued, with the flattering voyce [...]f the Serpent, to giue eare to the worde of GOD, [...]here hee shall see, that this is a conclusion of the [...]rses, solemnely to bee pronounced by the Levites, [...] which Amen was to be aunswered of all the people: [...]gainst idolaters, cursers of parents, murtherers, ince­ [...]uous persons, remouers of their neighbours markes, oppressors of the fatherlesse and straungers, &c. and ge­nerally against all transgressours of the Lawe, vnto whome the curse of eternall damnation is threatned [...]n the same wordes', that it is to the rest. Marke also, where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse, pro­ [...]eth all them that bee vnder the lawe, to be subiect [...] vnto this curse, howe the serpent denying this curse to bee the assurance of eternall death, maketh the case of them to bee nothing so daungerous, but continu­ing vnder the Lawe, they may auoyde eternall death. And where he saith euerie one in the Epistle, is not meant of Christians, I woulde knowe of him whe­ther [Page 130] the Galathians, to whome saint Paule writeth, were not Christians, but yet seduced by false Apostles, to take vpon them the obseruation of the lawe, which as it was impossible, so it would bring them from y ^e blessing of Christ, vnto the curse of God. That true Christians are discharged of this curse, it is by the onely merite of Christes satisfaction, and not that the sinnes them­selues deserue not euerlasting death, though they b [...] neuer so small of their owne nature, by the sentence of Gods curse, which is a iust rewarde for transgression. Heb. 2.

The two other places that I cite for this purpose: The soule that sinneth shall dye: Ezech. 18. and, the re­warde of sinne is death: Rom. 6. he will expounde by the saying of saint Iames Chapt. 1. sinne when it is consum­mate, gendreth death: as though this place of S. Iames denyed sinne, not brought into acte, to deserue death, because shewing that the cause of mens destruction i [...] in themselues, from the first concupisence to the laste and grosest Acte, hee concludeth that those grosse acts bring a man into eternall death. Our sauiour Christe saith, this is condemnation, that light is come into the worlde, and men haue loued darknes rather then light. Were it not good Logike and Diuinitie also, of this place to conclude, that condemnation perteineth not to men, but where the light offered is refused; or that if Christ had not come, none had ben condemned? Iohn. 3. and likewise, yea much rather, wher Christ saith: If I had not come and spoken vnto them, they shoulde not haue had sinne? Iohn. 15. Were the obstinate Iewes cleare of sinne by Bristowes iudgement, before Christ came? But let vs examine his reason. It is sinne (saith he) as soone as it is gendred, but it gendreth not death so so one as it is gendred: Therefore some sinne there is, that gen­dreth notd eath. The minor is false, for Sainct Iames, saying that sinne consummat gendreth death, doth not say that sinne gendreth not death, so soone as it is gen­dred. But beholde yet his impudent wresting of the [Page 131] scripture, hee addeth also an exception, vnto sinne con­summat, that not euery sinne consummat gendreth death, except the matter bee of weight accordingly. For els that the lightnesse of the matter, as an idle worde bringeth not death, hee sufficiently signifieth in saying, that in a weightie mat­ter, the lightnesse or imperfection of consent doth it not. These are his wordes, by which you may see, that without all shame, hee imputeth such sayings to Sainct Iames, as hee can finde neuer a worde in hi [...], sounde like such [...] saying. But this is the manner of heretikes, which learne not all trueth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture, and to inforce the wordes thereof, against all equitie, to signifie and say, whatsoeuer it pleaseth them. Nowe that saint Iames holdeth that euerie sinne deserueth death, I will proue out of his owne saying, by this argument: Whoso­euer is guiltie of all the lawe and commaundements, deserueth eternall death: Whosoeuer offendeth in one, is guiltie of all: therefore whosoeuer offendeth in one, deserueth eternall death. The maior I truste you will graunt: The minor is Sainct Iames cap. 2. Whoso­euer shall keepe the whole lawe, and offende but in one pointe, hee is guiltie of all: Then seeing eue­rie sinne is a breach of Gods Lawe, as Sainct Iohn af­firmeth, Iohn 3. not onely greate sinnes, but also small sinnes, wherein soeuer men offende against the lawe of GOD deserue eternall death, which cannot bee auoyded but by remission for Christes sake: for bee the sinne neuer so small, it is committed against GOD the authour of the Lawe, who thereby hath forbidden all sinnes, which reason the Apostle vseth, to prooue that hee which offendeth in one, is guiltie of all.

And therefore the textes by mee alleged doe suf­ficiently proue, that all sinnes of their owne nature are mortall.

[Page 132] That God remitteth the punishment, with the fault, in respect whereof the punishment is due, I proue by Fulke. Ezek. 18. & 33. where the Lorde promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences, that truely turneth vnto him, bringing forth the fruits of repen­tance. Bristow saith, this taketh not place before the daye of iudgment, whereby it would ensue, that to man could haue comfort of his sinnes forgiuen in this life. But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet, Psal, 24. & 78. Lorde remember not the sinnes of my youth: and, Lorde remember not our olde sinnes: which are the prayers of the penitent, to obtaine forgiuenesse of their sinnes: which once obtained, they say, The Lorde hath remoued our sinnes from vs, as farre as the East is from the West. Psalme 102. That may bee, saith Bristowe, in respect that they bee remoued from eternall damnation, although they haue yet to abide neuer so much temporall punishment. I will proue that to bee false. To bee remoued as farre as the East is from the West, is as farre as may bee: but not to bee remoued from temporall punish­ment, is not to bee remoued as farre as may bee: therefore it is not to bee remoued as farre as the Easte is from the West. But the whole Psalme, saith Bristowe, is spoken not of the time of our receiuing into Gods fa­uour by absolution: but of our finall restitution, which shall bee at the later day. What can bee saide more absurdly? Thankes are there giuen to GOD, not onely for spirituall benefites, but also for temporall.

The fatherly pytie of GOD towardes vs as his children which keepe his couenant and are mindefull of his commaundements to doe them, is there set forth, which euery man that is not blinde with hereticall malice, will acknowledge to bee extended towarde vs in this life, & therefore also the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and remouing of them as farre as Heauen from earth, and East from West. As for the argument of singing that Psalme in the popishe Church, vppon the feaste of Christs ascension, to proue, that it pertay­neth [Page 133] altogether to the later day, is as good, as it is true, [...]hat the wordes there spoken, are onely of our finall [...]estitution at the later day.

To the example of the publican, hee aunswereth [...]hat there is no more saide, but that hee went home [...]ustified more then the Pharisee. yes, there is saide, that [...]ee was iustified by forgiuenesse of sinnes, which hee [...]onfessed, not trusting in him selfe that hee was [...]ighteous, although hee ascribed all his vertues to the grace of GOD as the Pharisee did: O GOD I thanke thee &c. Iumpe with the Papistes, Luke 18. But Bristowe asketh me, howe I proue that hee which is iu­ [...]tified may not bee in some debt? seeing all the iu­ [...]tified children of GOD, are taught to pray, forgiue [...]s our debtes. I proue it thus. Hee that is by GOD [...]ustified, is accounted for iust: But hee that is iuste, is [...]n no debte for sinne: therefore he that is iustified, is in [...]o debte for sinne. That the faithfull are taught to [...]raye daylie, forgiue vs our debtes, it is because they [...]inne daylie, and by sinne enter into debte, and there­ [...]ore haue neede of dayly remission to continue iusti­ [...]ied.

The Prodigall childe Luke 15. hee saithe, is the Gentile receiued by baptisme, who if after baptisme he became prodigall, hee saith, I haue not proued, that being receiued by penaunce, wee must enioyne him no more punishment, then at his other receiuing. Beside that he restrayning this parable onely to Gen­tiles, comming first to Baptisme, depriueth the faithfull of inestimable comforte, hee neither hath any worde in the scripture so to restrayne it, and the whole contexte is against him. For Saincte Luke sheweth the occasion of the three parables of the loste sheepe, of the loste Groate, and of the prodigall Childe, to haue beene, because the Scribes and Pharisees murmu­red, that he receiued the Publicanes, and sinners, which all were Iewes and circumcised, yet fallen from the couenant of God by infinite and notorious sinnes: therefore according to right analogie, the lost Childe, [Page 134] euen as the lost sheepe, and lost Groate, is euerie peni­tent sinner; the elder brother, as the 99. sheepe, and 9. groates are the Scribes and Pharisees, which through hypocrisy in their owne iudgement, are righteous and neede no repentaunce.

To the 2. debters Luke 7. he answereth, that although Christ forgaue them both, yet they both had to be for­giuen after, according to the proportion of their loue. This importeth manifest contradiction, he forgaue all, yet something was not forgiuen. Yea saith Bristowe, Marie had much sinnes forgiuen her, because she lo­ued much, and therefore long after her hartes conuer­sion, and therefore after her first forgiuenesse, Christe sayeth: Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee.

This is a strange kinde of reasoning. Christe shew­ing the cause of Maries great loue, to haue bene for that great sinnes were forgiuen her, expresseth in voyce, that which she before conceiued by faith, that her sinnes were forgiuen her, Ergo after her first forgiuenes, she had need of a second, which she procured by loue. And yet it is more fonde, that in saying to Simon and of Simon the Pharisee: To whom lesse is forgiuen, he loueth lesse, he giueth him to vnderstand, that he owed more then he was aware, and therefore he should increase as Marie did in penitentiall loue. First howe proueth he that Si­mon was this other detter, to whom lesse was forgiuen? Secondly, admit that he was, howe proueth he, that he should shewe as great penitentiall loue as Marie, see­ing his debt was not so great as Maries, and therefore needed not so great a proportion of his loue, according to his owne heresie of merite? Thirdly, when Christe sayeth, To whom lesse is forgiuen he loueth lesse, he speaketh not so much of the quantitie of sinnes, but the acknowledging of them greater or lesser. For he that confesseth great sinnes to be pardoned, acknowledgeth that he is bound to great loue, as Marie did: the Phari­see, who, though his sinnes were as great as Maries, & in GODS sight, by meanes of hypocrisie more abhomi­nable, [Page 135] yet was so blinded in opinion of his owne righ­teousnesse, that he sawe them not, and therefore this loue was as colde, as he imagined his sinnes forgiuen to be fewe and small.

Thus the historie of the sinneful womans great loue, proueth nothing that punishment remayneth due to be payed after the debt is forgiuen. Whether this woman were Marie Magdalen, as Brîstowe calleth her, I wil not here dispute. Saint Luke giueth her no name.

The foundation is ouerthrowen, for all sinnes are Fulke. proued to deserue eternall death, and when God pardo­neth them, he pardoneth them clearely, as well the pu­nishment as the guiltinesse, for what should he punishe in them that are guiltie of no sinne by his pardon. Therefore where I cited Psalm. 103. That God hath not dealt with vs according to our sinnes, &c. Bristow is driuen to his former shift, that these wordes are spo­ken of the Prophete onely, for the time of the finall re­warde which I haue confuted before.

Concerning those that repent at the houre of death, I sayde they haue rewarde of eternall life, as well as they that repent sooner, by authoritie of the parable Matthew 20. of them that came the last houre, to worke in the vineyarde.

Bristow saith, I am deceiued, because I cannot see any iustice in mercie. Yes verily, I see the iustice of God fully answered in Christ, not in the person that needeth mercie, who is pardoned and iustified gratis freely, Rom. 3. & 11. But the spirite of God sayeth, Apoc. 2. that he will giue to euery one of you according to his workes: wherevpō Bristowe inferreth, y ^e God is not alike good to al, that he hath once shewed mercie vnto, for Christ, to all the baptised. I aunswere that texte is a threatning to Iesabel, & them that commit fornication with her, if they do not repent from their workes. For it foloweth [Page 136] immediately. But to you I say and the rest in Thyatei [...], y ^t haue not this doctrine, and which haue not knowen y ^e deapth of Satan, as they say, I wil not lay vpon you any other burthen, &c. although it be true, that God rewar­deth euery man according to his workes, which is in qualitie good or euill, not in quantitie as much or as little as they deserue. What shall I say that Bristowe bringeth in a varietie of pence, contrary to the scope of the parable, & affirmeth the pence to be wages for the working & that also by bargaine? So that eternall life is not the gift of God, neither are men saued by grace & not of workes, in his iudgement, contrary to the A­postles plaine doctrine. Eph. 2.

In the conclusion he saith, If you can prooue that God will shewe as full mercie also where he findeth not that fulnesse of Christes grace, then call vs hardly enimies, for not suffering God to shewe mercie to whom he will. But where wanteth that fulnesse of Christes grace, in any of Gods electe? Is it where greatest sinnes be? The Apostle answereth, where sinne hath abounded, grace hath more then abounded. Rom. 5. Wherfore the fulnesse of the grace of Christ be­ing extended to the greatest sins, what should we doubt that the lesser should not be swallowed vp of it?

I saide Purg. 198. I haue learned in the scripture, that Fulke. there is no name giuen vnder heauen, by whiche they may be helped, which are not helped by Christes death, Act. 4. Bristowe asketh whether I haue learned, that they which are helped by the death of Christe, can not through his grace helpe and be holpen one of an o­ther.

To whom I aunswere as I saide before, to Allen: I learne in scripture, that the bloud of Christe purgeth vs from all sinne, Iohn. 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sinnes, by the bloud of Christe, (as the Papistes affirme them to be which haue neede of other purgation) I haue not learned that they can haue [Page 137] any helpe elsewhere. Or if you say, the bloud of Christ h [...]th purged them from all sinne, why doe you invent another purgatory to purge them, which is not y ^e bloud of Christ? for fierie torments according to Gods iustice are not the bloud of Christ shed for our redemption, by which men are iustified freely, Rom. 3. through which we haue remission of our sinnes through the riches of his grace. Eph. 1.

Another reason of mine is grounded vpon Allens wordes, which saith: that they which are in purgatory, cā not by any motion of minde, attaine more mercie, then their life past deserued. Whereof I inferre, that their faith being a notable motion of the minde, cannot pro­fite them, except the merites of other men should pro­fite them without faith, the Scripture saying, that with­out faith, it is not possible to please God. Bristowe ic­sting at these iron conclusions, letteth the argument stand, and denyeth the latter conclusion, affirming that by their faith, they are in case to be profited by other mens workes: which if it be true, then is Allens con­clusion false, that they can not profite them selues, by a­ny motion of minde, whereon it will followe that they cannot profite them selues by beleeuing, that other mens workes may helpe them, beeing destitute of their owne. They cannot atteine mercie by any motion of minde, Ergo not by faith.

As though I defended the onely omnipotencie of Fulke. Christes passion able to purge al sinnes, and not the om­nisufficiencie hauing satisfied for our sinns, first he reply­eth, that an Origenist might likewise say, The omnisuf­ficiencie of Christes passion cannot stande with hell.

No sir, for against him, is not onely the wil of Christ, but his Act also past, hauing sufficiently onely for his elect: which satisfaction he communicateth vnto them, not in respecte of their workes, but according to his [Page 138] grace, whiche can abide no workes to ioyne with it in merite, but onely faith in receiuing confirmed by the sacramentes in the persons of all them, that heare his word, and in them that cannot heare, only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it: so that no degrees, proportions, meanes or instruments, wherof Bristow babbleth, can make any merite to detract from Christs death, y ^e most plentiful & free grace of satisfactiō, for all our sins cōmitted either before baptisme, or after.

For this purpose, I cited 1. Iohn. 2. Pur. 42. to proue that if any man sinne after baptisme, Iesus Christ is our Advocate with the father, and the propitiation for our sinnes. Bristow answereth, That is true, But that in playing the Advocate for our sinnes after baptisme, he request [...]th the like & equal grace, as he did in baptisme for sinnes afore bap­tisme, where haue you that? If you make Christes ad­vocation a playing matter, I will take no charge of you. But to let passe your vnreuerent phrase, what doe you ascribe vnto him in his office of advocate, but onely to be a requester, as euery common Saint is counted with you? But you must vnderstande, that the office of an Advocate or patrone is, to pleade for his clientes, and not to require only, and what hath he to pleade for vs a­gainst y ^e debte of our sins, either before or after baptism but his owne satisfaction in his death & suffering? And therefore euen that which you aske, where I haue i [...] I haue euen in the very same words, y ^t he requesteth as an advocate, for our sins after baptisme the like and equall grace, as he did in Baptisme for sinns afore baptisme. For there I finde him a propitiation for our sinnes commit­ted after baptisme, which word I maruel your blind he­resie could not see, whereof I reason thus. The same pro­pitiation, as course of grace working after baptisme, that was in or before baptisme, must haue equall effectes of grace: But Christ is y ^e same propitiation after Baptisme that he was in it, or before: Ergo he must haue the same effectes of grace, working the satisfaction of our sinnes euen at the full. Where I alledge Purg. 9 [...]. that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all our sins: 1. Ioh. 1. Bristowe answereth, It is taken out of the same place, and ha [...]h the same [Page 139] answere, to wit, that his bloud doth worke more graciously in the sacrament of baptisme, then in the sacrament of penance. Of pe­ [...]ance being a sacrament, I wil not here dispute, but fol­ [...]owe the principall matter in controuersie, whether all [...]innes of the repentant, after baptisme, be as clearly pur­ged, as they were in baptisme by the bloud of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argumēt, doth [...]ufficiently proue it, yet euen this very place is manifest­ [...]y to be vnderstood of the bloud of Christ purging all our sinnes committed after baptisme, as well as before. The bloud of Christ, saith S. Iohn purgeth vs, that is, me & you (baptized Christians, I doubt not) of al sinne, which if we say we haue not, we deceiue our selues, and the trueth is not in vs. The worde is [...] doth make pure and cleane, and so is the vulgar latine emundat. A­gaine he saith in the same place: if we confesse our sins, [...]e is faithful and iust that he may forgiue vs our sinnes, and make vs pure from all iniquitie. If the bloud of Christ, in which we haue forgiuenesse, doeth purge vs from all our sinnes, and make vs pure from all iniqui­ [...]ie, whensoeuer we acknowledge them with hartie re­pentance; what place is left for any other purging or clensing of that, which the bloud of Christ and the mer­cie of God hath made pure and cleane?

That I cite out of S. Iohn, being washed by Christ, we are throughly cleane. Iohn 13. & out of Esay: Al­though our sinnes were as red as scarlet, they are made as white as snowe: He answereth these places are euident of baptisme. And therefore he admitteth that I sayd of them so clensed, that they are made capable immediatly of the heauenly inheritance. But why, I pray you, are they euident of baptisme? because there is mention of washing in both places? Is there no washing but in baptisme? At least wise, will you saye, that the Pro­phet Esay preaching to the people of his age, when hee called them to washing, called them to baptisme, so manye hundreth yeares before baptisme was instituted? Is it not therefore euident, that hee calleth them to repentaunce? Or else, hauing [Page 140] first so grieuously accused them of their present sinnes, doeth he shewe no comfort, but in the sacramēt of bap­tisme, which no man liuing could then possibly ob­teine in such manner as you meane, no not the Prophet him selfe. I might well say to you, as you say to mee in another place, In good sooth Dauus, these things are not aptly diuided according to their times. And that Christ Iohn. 13. speaketh not of the ceremonie of baptisme, it i [...] manifest by diuerse reasons, but of his grace by which he washeth vs from all our sinnes. And therefore be sayth to Peter, except he were washed of him, he coulde haue no part with him. But neither Peter, nor any o­ther was or is baptised of him with water: Iohn 4. ther­fore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptisme. And where you adde, that he which is so washed, must neuer­thelesse wash his feete, that is, say you, his veniall sinnes, which he committeth afterwarde, although he continue withall in the cleannesse of baptisme, before he be all cleane, and aske mee, what if he dye before he wash his feete? Admitting that the feete should signifie none but veniall sinnes. I aske you againe, who shall wash his feete, but he which washed Peters feet? for the true text is [...], he hath no neede but that his feete be washed. Peter could not wash his owne feete in this figuratiue signification, but except Christ did wash him he could haue no part with him. But if we should take the feete onely for veniall sinnes, and the generall washing for baptisme, this inconuenience would follow of Christes wordes: that he which is bap­tised and purged from veniall sinnes, neede no purgati­on to clense him from mortall sinnes, but is perfectly cleare. The wordes of our sauiour are generall, & can­not admitt your exception, of continuing in the clean­nesse of baptisme: therefore the feete signifie all sinnes to be pardoned, after the first grace purging vs, which is in deede represented and ratified in baptisme, but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament, and often times deuided. For Iudas of whome you speake, if he had dyed immediatly after he was baptised, should not haue [Page 141] gone to heauen, as one throughly washed or clensed by [...]aptisme.

Where the Papists vrge the saying of Dauid, Psal. [...]1. Amplius laua me, &c. Wash me more from mine in­ [...]quitie: Bristow saith, I haue nothing to answeare, but [...]hat it was at Gods hand, and by the meanes of Christes [...]lood, that he prayed to be clensed. Purg. 97. & 78. Whether I haue nothing else to say, let the readers of [...]hose places iudge. But that which I here saye, taketh a­ [...]ay Purgatorie and all satisfaction of mans merite, al­ [...]hough Dauid, as all the faithfull do pray, that they may [...]aily more and more feele the mercy of God and grace [...]f Christes redemption, to the full satisfying of their [...]onscience, and perfect assurance of faith and hope of e­ [...]ernall life, which though it receiue daily increases, yet [...]he vertue of Christes death, in which God is reconciled [...]nto vs, is alwayes one and the same.

Where I charge Allen, that the sufficiencie of Christs [...]assion, is counted a light argument vnto him: Bristow [...]aith, it is too light in deede, to beare downe any doctrin [...]f Christ. But when, or out of what scripture shal wee [...]eare the doctrine of Christ for mens merites, satisfa­ [...]tions, propitiatorie, or purgatorie it selfe?

Where I denye, that our workes are any parte of sa­ [...]isfaction for our sinnes, of which the price is through­ [...]y payed in the passion of Christ: Bristow obiecteth the [...]aying of the Apostle, Phil. 2. Worke your owne sal­uation: and yet it is God that worketh in you. As though there were no working of our saluation, but by satisfaction for our sinnes. Wee worke our saluation, when we walke in the way that God hath called vs to passe through, vnto the free gift of eternall life, namely in faith, obedience, thankfulnes, &c. which are so farre from merite, that it is God which worketh in vs, both to will and to perfourme any good thing, according to his good pleasure. Phil. 2. And therefore wee neede not the schoole distinction of causes, for the satisfaction of our sinnes by our workes, which is onely the effect of Chri­stes death and passion, needing no helpe of our workes, [Page 142] which worde (Bristowe sayth) mine ignorance so much abhorreth, and yet the scripture often sayth, that God helpeth both Christ, Ps. 17. & vs. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christs helpeth vs, Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture, that our workes helpe the passion of Christ? I abhorre not the worde of helping, when it is vsed in that sense, that God and Christ should helpe vs; or God helpe Christ in re­spect of his humanitie: but that man by merite should helpe God & Christ, in the worke of our redemption, satisfaction for our sinnes, or purging of them, I abho [...]e with all my heart: yea, I spit at it, and tread it vnder my feete. But if the mercie of God (saith Bristowe) although i [...] be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christs pas­sion, nor the working of it, or merites of that man: how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christs passiō, enforte you to exclude either his baptisme & his good workes in his members, or also the working of his baptisme, and the working or efficacie of those good works▪ especially seeing the scripture is plaine for all. Bristow vnder­standeth not, how the mercie of God is omnisufficient, which is not as e [...]ery one will imagine, but as it may stande with his iustice, which is not otherwise satisfied, but in the passion of Christ: which being thereby fully satisfied, we exclude nothing that the scripture admit­teth, but that which not onely the scripture denyeth, but nature it selfe abhorreth, that contradictories should be both true: Namely, the iustice of God is fully satisfied by the onely suffering of Christ: And the iustice of god is not satisfied by the onely sufferings of Christ, but by other meanes also, as by our own workes, or suffrings, or other mens for vs. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristowe citeth, proue this later part of the con­tradiction to be true. First, where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration: The text is, when the louing kindnesse & gentlenes of God our sa­uiour appeared, not of the works of righteousnes, which we wrought, but according to his owne mercy, he hath saued vs, by the lauer of regeneration and the receiuing of the holy ghost, which he hath powred foorth plenti­fully vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour, that being iu­stified by his grace, we might be made heires according [Page] to the hope of eternal life. Here it is manifest, we are so [...]aued by baptisme, that we are iustified by his grace, ther [...]ore not by the merite of baptisme or satisfactiō of our [...]nnes in baptisme: but we are saued by baptisme, as we [...]re in [...]eo [...]fed by a deede, that is sealed, that is, assured of [...]aluation: as Abraham receiued circumcision, the seale [...]f the righteousnes, which he had by faith, before he was [...]ircumcised. Ro. 4. and euen so he clenseth his church by [...]he lauer of water, not by the merite of y ^e worke of bap­ [...]isme, but in that he gaue him selfe for it, that he might sanctifie it, Eph. 5. After the same maner doth baptisme saue vs. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of y ^e filth of the flesh, [...]ut y ^e interrogatiō of a good conscience before god, tho­ [...]ough the resurrection of Iesus Christ, which presuppo­ [...]eth his death, for satisfaction of our sinnes, as his resur­ [...]ection is the speciall cause of our iustification. Last of [...]ll, saith Bristowe: he hath made vs kings & priestes to God, Apo. 1. If spiritual priests, ergo, to offer vp spiritual sacrifices, as of [...]ur mortification. Rom. 12. our almes deedes, Heb. 13. both for our [...]wne sinnes, & for the sinnes of other. Here in the last point, [...]he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth: but we shal haue reason confirmed by scripture: because the [...]xternall priest is ordeined to offer externall sacrifices for sinnes, [...]oth for him selfe & for the people. Heb. 5. But this cause is many wayes auoided: for we are priests to offer vp y ^e on­ [...]y sacrifices of thanksgiuing, & not of propitiation for sinne, which cannot be without shedding of bloud Heb. 9. Secondly, although we be all made priests, yet we are not made high priests, of which the text speaketh. Heb. 5. which office one only can enioy at one time, which is our sauiour Christ, for terme of his life, which is with­out end. Thirdly, those sacrifices which the externall priest offered for sinnes, could neuer take away sinnes, Heb. 10. much lesse our spirituall sacrifices of thanksgi­uing for Gods benefites bestowed on vs, & his whole church. I cited further. Apoc. 7. These are they y ^t came out of y ^t great affliction, & haue washed their stoles, and made them white in y ^e bloud of the lamb: therfore they are in y ^e presence of y ^e throne of god. Brist. saith, this word [Page 144] therefore, is referred to their comming out of affliction, and so whited their stoles: And yet this gloser (saith he of me) taketh it away from the affliction, whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction. O impudent and blasphe­mous heretike: when the holy ghost expressely sayeth, they made their stoles white in the bloud of the lamb, darest thou open thy mouth and saye, not only, that that whiting was somewhat else then the bloud of Christ, but also that it was nothing but that affliction, so vtterly excluding the bloud of Christ? But I forgot to conferre other places of scripture, as he chargeth me. Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sinnes, to any other thing, than to the bloud of Christ? Let vs heare what, whoso ouercommeth, shalbe clothed with white gar­ments. Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs ouercame the diuell, not onely by the blood of the lambe, but also by their owne patient confession, or affliction vnto death. Apoc. 12. The text is: and they ouercame him by the bloud of the lambe, and by the word of their testimo­nie, and they loued not their liues vnto death. Here is no cause of victorie, but the bloud of the lambe, and the worde of their testimonie, which was the confession of their faith, the onely instrumentall cause of their iusti­fication and victorie: who is he which ouercommeth the world, sayth S. Iohn, but he that beleueth? 1. Iohn 5. Faith therefore the onely shilde to haue victory against the worlde and the diuell, hath no power in it selfe to clense our sinnes, but leaneth altogether to the bloud of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latine authenticall translation, and to turne [...] by their owne martyrdom, which is in deede by the worde of their testimonie, or which they did testifie: whereas by his translation [...] ­ [...] should signifie no more then [...]: and [...] should be taken for suffering of death, as I thinke it is in no Greeke author, sure I am it is neuer so taken in the newe testament.

But Bristow addeth: that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Iesus, when the Apostles were mortifyed [Page 145] for Iesus, and sayeth they carryed the same about continually in their bodies, that also the life of Iesus might also be manifected in their bodies, 2. Cor. 4. I wot well, wee must be confor­mable to Christ in sufferings, that we may be partakers of his kingdome and glorie: but doeth it therefore fol­lowe, that our sufferings merit this glorie by his bloud? or that his bloud without all respect of our merites, doeth not alone purge and clense vs from all our sinnes? After he had finished the cleansing of our sinnes by his owne selfe, sayeth the Apostle, he is set downe at the right hande of magnificence in the highest. Heb. 1.

Last of all, Bristowe opposeth that Saint Paul sayth: This our affliction although it be but short and light, worketh vs euerlasting weight of glory exceeding measure aboue mea­sure. 2. Cor. 4. I answere, it worketh not by meriting, not by purging our sinnes, or by satisfying for our iniqui­ties, but by making vs conformable vnto our head, in passing by the same way of tribulatiōs vnto glorie, that he did, euen as the way or steppes which leadeth vnto an high place of dignitie, maketh not them worthie of the dignitie that must ascende by those steppes vnto it, and yet it is necessarie for them that will come to that dignitie, to sit in such places, to take that ordinary way. Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their di­gnitie, so doeth affliction worke our glory. Not to a­bridge any part of the glorie or merite of Christes suf­fering, by which onely wee are made worthie of glory when all our sinnes being cleansed by his bloud, wee appeare righteous before God, not in the merite of our owne workes, nor hauing our owne righteousnes, which is by the lawe, but the righteousnesse of God, which is by faith of Iesus Christ, that wee may knowe him of the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his suf­ferings being made conformable vnto his death, Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth, that seeing the bloud of Christ purgeth vs of all our sinnes, and Iesus Christ is y ^e propitiation for our sinnes, committed either after bap­tisme or before, that all other purgings and satisfactiōs are ouerthrowen, and so popish purgatorie remaineth [Page 146] without any foundation: the purging of Christs bloud making vs most pure: and Christ our propitiation be­ing throughly & only sufficient to reconcile vs.

Secondly: directly of Purgatorie it selfe & prayer for the Bristowe. dead, whether all the elect goe streight to heauen. Afore Christes comming Limbus patrum.

His childish rayling on mine argumentes, with that Fulke. impudent slaunder of all the church of God, which he affirmeth was ignorant that any soules went to heauen before their church had defined it, within these 300. yeres, I passe ouer, & come to the matter in question. I said Purg. 57. against Allen, mainteining that all the iust before Christ were punished for their sinnes forgiuē ma ny hundreth yeres after their departure in hel. That the fathers of the olde testament before Christ were not in hell, it is to be proued with manifest arguments & autorities out of holy scri­ptures. Although they were not, nor yet are in perfect blessednes, God prouiding a better thing for vs, that they without vs, shuld not be made perfect. Heb. 11. But by this text (saith Brist.) S. Paul doth meane, y ^t their soules were not yet admit­ted into heauen. How proueth he that? forsooth, the old testament did consummate nothing, &c. but their sinnes remaining not perfectly remitted, Christ died, &c. A sore bolt, as though any man had his sinnes forgiuen, but by the new testament, or could be heire of the kingdom of heauen, but by y ^e death of Christ. But the same apostle saith. Heb 9. That the way of the saints, was not yet o­pened, while the first tabernacle stood. Bristow addeth to the text of his own, into soncta or heauen: wher the apo­stle meaneth of the worke of Christs redemption in his death, resurrection & ascension, the effect wherof, neuer­theles was extended no lesse to the fathers of y ^t olde te­stament, then to vs. Thirdly, the apostle saith, Heb. 10. that we haue confidence to enter in to the holy place, by the bloud of Iesus, which hath dedicated y ^t new & liuing way for vs, through the vayle that is his flesh. All which proueth nothing, but that there is no entrance into hea­uen, but by Christ, which way is comon to all y ^e saintes of God, of all ages. But Bristow biddeth me conferre the [Page 147] end of my text. Heb. 11. with the beginning: where he saith, they receiued not y ^e promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating: I admit it: for no Christian receiueth the promise consummate before the resurrec­tion of their bodies. The consummation of which pro­mise, & perfection of the saints, God reserueth vnto one time, when we shal all receiue the promise & consum­mation together: that they without vs (saith he) shoulde not be consummate, the same reason is of the apostles & fathers of the primitiue church, & vs of the later church, & them y ^t shalbe to y ^e end of the world. Now to mine arguments & autorities of scripture. I reason, that seeing they all beleeued in Christ, they had euerlasting life, & entred not into condemnation, but passed frō death to life. Ioh. 5. To what life (saith Bristow) but the life or resur­rection of their bodies? for vntil the last day, all the dead are in death. O prodigious heretike, call you that a passage frō death to life, to continue in death 5. or 6. thousād years? Is God then to this new Saducee, the god of the dead & not of the liuing? yea, he saith, y ^t life after corporal deth in y ^e new testament, lightly euery where, signifieth y ^e re­surrection of the bodies. What is it then to take hold of eternall life in this world, which shalbe interrupted w ^t so long abyding in death? 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our sauiour saith: he that beleueth in me, hath alreadie eternal life, if they y ^t are passed out of this world are all in death? wherfore then is this eternall life interupted with any Purgatorie, Limbus patrum, or death.

The second argument is, of that Christ is called the lamb that was slaine from the beginning of the worlde; because the benefite of his passion extendeth vnto the godly of all ages alike. Apoc. 13. To this, the beast hath nothing to answere, but y ^t it is not said, that the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world: but that all the repro­bates shal adore antichrist whē he cometh. And because Apoc. 17. the words be: whose names were not written in the booke of life frō the beginning of the world: he would haue those wordes from the beginning of the world, by a monstrous construction, contrary to the [Page 148] manifest composition and pointing, both in the Greeke & vulgare Latine, to be referred not to the lamb slaine, but to the booke of life. As though both those textes in their seuerall sense might not be true, except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cō ­position & pointing in this text of y ^e Apoc. Yet he confes­seth it to be true, that y ^e lambe was slaine from the be­ginning of the world, which is no where else written in the scripture, but heere: the cause of the trueth, he will not haue to be my fonde sense, but because his death was preordeined of God, and prefigured so long before. A substantiall cause by which we may say, that Bristowe was dead from the beginning of the world, because his death was so long before ordeined of God, and prefigu­red in the death of Adam.

The third argument is, that Esay speaking of y ^t righ­teous that are departed out of this life, sayeth that there is peace, and that they shall rest in their beddes, Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon, or hell, is prepared of olde for the wicked. To this he an­swereth, that Esay speaketh not of his owne time, but as a Prophet, of the time now since the cōming of Christ, who is our peace, as though Christ were not their peace as well as oures. And what a shamelesse answere is this, to denye the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithfull after death, to perteine to the faithfull of his owne time, to whome then it was in vaine preached and published by the Prophet? After a little quarreling against my translatiō, the sense wherof he cannot deny: he asketh, if the rest of the soules must needes be the blisse of heauen? and telleth vs that their Limbus was not a place of sensible paine: But sir, Salom whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous doe goe, will not onely giue them rest, without sense of paine: but peace with happinesse and prosperitie. Finally, he sayeth, Topheth or Gehenna, was not the onely hell, be­cause our Creede and the Scripture sayeth, that Christes soule was in hell: I answere, that hell signifyeth either the place, or state of torments for sinnes: in the former, [Page 149] Caluine (whome you slaunder) sayth not that Christ was in, but in the later, when he complained that he was forsaken of God: there is not therefore proued, by Christes discending into hell, any other place or recep­tacle of soules in hell, but Topheth and Gehenna y ^e place of the damned.

The fourth argument against Limbus, is, that Lazarus was carryed by Angels, not downe to hell, but vp to A­brahams bosome. But the riche man being in hell, loo­ked vp and seeth Abraham afarre of. Bristowe asketh whether [...] signifie to be carryed vp? sir, it signi­fieth to be carried away, and seeing the riche man loo­king vp, seeth Lazarus afarre of, it followeth that Laza­rus was carried vp and not downe. But you reply, it fo­loweth not that he was carryed into heauen. Then you may say he was carried vp to hell. But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heauen, although one were vpwarde, and also farre off both in state and situation (purgatorie peraduenture be­twixt them.) This is a goodly faith, that standeth vpon peraduenture, and this may be, &c. The Scripture saith, ther was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance be­tweene them, which cannot agree to Limbus, which must be harde adioyning to hell, or else it is not Limbus. But if they were no way nigh together (sayth he) it will not followe that Abrahams bosome was heauen. I answere, if they were no way nigh together, it could not be hell, nor Limbus of hell, which is the thing I was to proue. Also the text is plaine, that Abrahams bosome was a place of comfort. And other place of comfort then heauen or Paradise, which is all one, for the soules de­parted, I finde none in Scripture.

The last argument is this: If righteousnesse belong to Abrahams children, the rewarde of righteousnesse also perteineth to them. Therefore Abrahams bosome was open to receiue all the childrem of Abraham, euen as the bosome of God was readie to receiue Abraham, because he was his sonne through faith.

Heere Bristowe noteth no small blasphemie, pro­ceeding [Page 150] of grosse ignorance, saying, That which is proper to vnigenitus, the onely begotten sonne of God, hee maketh common to Abraham. Why Bristowe? because vnigenitus is eternally, and after his proper manner, in the bo­some of the father, doth it thereof followe, that none can be in the bosom of GOD, but the proper place of Christ is made common to them? You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my grosse ignorance in the scriptures, and haue you such fine knowledge in them, that you coulde not see what Esay writeth Chap. 40. according to your owne translation, Ecce dominus Deus, &c. Beholde the Lorde God shall come in strength, and his arme shall haue the dominion: beholde his rewarde is with him, and his worke before him: As a sheepheard hee will feede his flocke, hee will gather the Lambes together on his arme and beare them in his bosome: in sin [...] suo leuabit? Beholde you greate and mightie doctours in the scriptures, the bo­some of GOD as of a shephearde, is open to re­ceiue all his Lambes; howe much more as a father to receiue his children? But to the argument you aun­swere: The rewarde of righteousnesse may belong to one, and yet not payed him, as soone as hee dyeth. Saincte Paule saying expresly of Abraham and many of his children, that they departed not recei­uing the promises, but beholding them a farre off: and all these renouned by faith, receiued not the promise. That is (saith Bristowe) the inheritance, the rewarde of righteousnesse: I replye, the rewarde of righteousnesse cannot belonge to one, but it must bee payed him as soone as it is payed vnto others, to whome the same rewarde, vppon the same cause be­longeth: therefore seeing it is payed to some imme­diately after their death, it is likewise to all. That manie dyed not receiuing the promises, is partelie vnderstoode of the promises of the lande of Cana­an, partelye of the full fruition and perfection of rewarde, which to all men is denyed before the laste [Page 151] iudgement, and so no inequalitie or vniustice vnto any.

They that liue vnto Christe, dye vnto him, and be­ing Fulke. disolued are with him. The soules of the faith­full and the repentant are where Christ is, as hee prayeth [...]oan 17. so hee saith to the theefe, no perfecte iuste [...]an, but a sinner repentaunt, This day thou shalt [...]ee with mee in Paradise, Luke 23. And Saincte P [...]ule desireth to bee dissolued and to bee with Christ.

To leaue his iugling of seeing Christes godheades glorie, and manhoodes glorie, whereof I speake no worde, hee confesseth the example of Sainct Paul de­clareth, that a per [...]ect iust man goeth straight to Christ: Likewise the example if the theefe declareth, that a penitent sinner, goeth straight to Christ, if either his penaunce bee full and perfect, or his pardon, which is a remission of his pe­nance be plenarie. By this you perceiue that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory, and not for repentaunce of the hearte and true conuersion vn­to GOD: But there is a plenarie pardon and satis­faction for all sinnes giuen to euerie penitent sinner: therefore euery penitent sinner goeth streight to Christ whom we knowe and beleeue to be in heauen. The minor is proued, by sainct Iohn, 1. Iohn 2. Iesus Christ is our aduocate and propitiation for our sinnes. The bloude of Iesus Christe doth purge vs from all sinnes.

Secondly hee saith, I allude to a place, Romans 14. wee liue to our Lorde, and wee die to our Lord: where­by nothing else is ment, but that hee is our iudge in life and death. A bare exposition, if wee haue no more comforte by liuing to the Lorde, then that hee shall bee our iudge at our death. Howe be it I grounde not myne argument onelye, of that phrase, to [Page 152] controll Augustines exposition of them that die in the Lorde, Apoca. 14. for martyrs onely, as you slaunder mee, but compare other places of the faithfull, that are a­sleepe in Christ, 1. Corin. 15. And they that are deade in Christ, 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one, with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the deade that dye in the Lorde, that text cannot bee restrained onely to the blessednesse of martyrs, but extendeth to the happinesse of all that are deade in the Lorde, which are all the faithfull. But the circumstance of the place (saith Bristowe) giueth it to bee meant of martyrs. I aunswere, there is no circumstance that can proue it to bee spoken onely of Martyrs) seeing the argument of their blessednesse, is dying in the Lorde, whiche is common to all the faithfull, therefore blessednesse also, and that is the iudgement of S. Augustine de ciu. dei lib. 20 Cap. 9. whatsoeuer Allen or you prate to the contrarie. For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus vpon it. Reg. nat itaque: ‘The Church therefore nowe first reineth with Christ in the lyuing, and in the deade. For therefore (as the Apostle saith) Christ dyed, that he shoulde be Lorde ouer the liuing and ouer the deade. But therefore he na­med onely the soules of the Martyrs, because they as the chiefe, reigne being deade, which vnto death striued for the truthe. But by a part we vnderstand the whole, euen the rest that are deade pertaining to the Church which is the kingdom of Christ.’

Whether that iudgement may stande with Purgatorie. Bristowe.

My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting, which in deede is Fulke. no argument of myne, neither doe I thinke the texte Eccle 11. to be vnderstoode of the state of men after this life: onely I shew that Allen by his glosses, hath not sa­tisfied them that so expounde it, of whom one is S. Hie­rom. Purg, 436. 439. 441. Indeede Purg 281. I said, imme­diately after death (as M. Allen confesseth) followeth iudgement, but prayers either neede not or boote not, [Page 153] where the partie is either acquited or condemned, by [...]e sentence of the iudge, which, as Augustine saith, can­ [...]ot be indifferent betweene reward and punishment. De [...]b. arb. lib. 3. Cap. 23. To this he aunswereth first that saint [...]ugustine there saith the contrary, as I shal see if I reade [...]e place. Why sir, I read it thus: Superfluo quaeri de meri­ [...]s, &c. In vaine doe men moue a question of his merits, which hath deserued nothing, speaking of the death of [...]n infant) neque enim: for it is not to be feared, least his [...]fe coulde haue beene media, meane or indifferent, be­ [...]weene well doing and sinne: Et sententia iudicis media es­ [...] non possit inter praemium atque supplicium, and the sentence [...]f the iudge cannot bee meane or indifferent, betweene [...]ewarde and punishment. This I trust shall suffice of my [...]eading, vntill wee see what you reade to the contrarie. [...]ut to mine argument, Bristowe aunswereth for them [...]at are condemned to hell, prayers boote not: of them [...]at are acquited, some streight rewarded in their soules, [...]o [...] which they neede no prayers, but yet not rewarded [...] their bodies for which they pray, Apoc. 6. vntill they [...]e hearde, Apoc. 11. other not streight rewarded in their [...]ules, of which some be without sense of punishment, as [...] Limbo other be punished temporally, &c. If it bee [...]wfull to make such diuisions and subdiuisions, with­ [...]ut the authoritie of the scriptures, we may imagine what we will. But sir, for them that be acquited of sin, and can haue no meane sentence betweene reward and punishment, how can their rewarde be deferred or how can they be punished for sinne, which are acquited ther­of? As for them that lacke the rewarde of their bodie, it [...]s that they may receiue it in time most conuenient, both for the glorie of God and for the commodities of [...]ll the saincts of God together. As for the martyrs, A­poc. 6, I finde they complayned for iustice against their murtherers, I finde not that they prayed for the reward of their body: which complaint is to be vnderstoode ra­ther of the desert of the wicked persecuters then of the affection of the holy martyrs. The bloude of Abel cried vengaunce, yet Abel patiently suffered death. The [Page 154] differences of punishment for being angrie saying [...]ac [...], & fatue, proue difference of damnation greater for grea­ter offences, but not of punishment lesse then damna­tion due for the least, seing our sauiour Christ appoin­teth the same guiltinesse for vnaduised anger, which the Pharisees did for murther: who neuer were so farre past all shewe of honestie, to make murther a veniall sinne, not deseruing damnation, as you doe.

Another argument is out of Matth. 7. of the two wayes, if there bee but two wayes in this life, there are but two abiding places after this life. To this Bristowe aunswereth, although the argument bee not mine, but an obiection that Allen taketh on him to aunswere: First that in the wide way some goe wider then some, with infinite varietie, but all to damnation presently: Secondly in the narrowe way, some goe nar­rower then some with infinite varietie, yet all in the narrowe way: Ergo say I, all straight to saluation. Al­though in a way so narrowe, that it is called [...] [...] thrusting way, or a way, whose sides are thrust toge­ther, that there shoulde bee such infinite varietie of nar­rownesse, which must also import an infinite widenes, it is against all reason, and the worde of the texte. Wherefore it cannot bee the way of merites but of faith.

Another argument is of the text 2. Cor. 5. We shall all stande before the iudgement seate of Christ, that e­uerie one may receiue in his bodie according to such things as he hath done either good or euill. Therefore the prayers or deedes of other men helpe not. To this he aunswereth out of Augustine, that the deade in our Lorde, hath in his life deserued, that these workes after his death might be profitable to him. Against which au­thoritie, he saith, I haue no reply, to maintain that scrip­ture against such prayer, but onely oppose a saying of Hierom. I think the scripture it selfe is a sufficient replie against all authoritie of man. Euerie man shall receiue according to his owne workes, and not according to the workes of other men, as for the deserte of man, it is [Page 155] nothing but vnto damnation. And yet that argument is [...]ected by Allen, not framed by me.

An other argument I haue of the iudgement of God, [...]r. 85. If Purgatory be so necessarie to satisfie Gods iu­ [...]e by temporall paynes of sinners according to the [...]e, &c. and Purgatory shall cease, as you affirme out [...] Augustine: How shall the same be satisfied in them [...]t dye immediately before the day of iudgement, so [...]t they haue not had time inough there to be suffici­ [...]tly purged? The like may be demaunded of all them [...]ich in a moment shalbe chaunged from mortalitie [...] immortalitie at the very comming of Iesus Christe [...] to iudgement? These are two doughtie questions [...]yeth Bristowe, for aunswere of which he asketh me, [...]here I finde that principle in Allen? That Purgato­ [...] is necessarie to satisfie according to the time. For­ [...]oth sir, Where he sayeth, if any debt remaine to be dischar­ [...]d it must needes rise by proportion, weight, continuance, number [...]d quantitie of the faultes, whereby it must of necessitie be indu­ [...]d, that because euerie man cannot haue time to repay all in his [...]e, that there is all, or some part aunswerable in the worlde to [...]e. Here sir of faultes we haue proportion, weight, [...]ntinuance, number, quantitie, therefore we must [...]aue satisfaction in purgatorie according to propor­ [...]on, weight, continuance, number, quantitie of them, [...]xcept you wil as well denie the proportion, weight, number, & quantitie of faultes to bee regarded in Purgatory, as the time. Wherefore if a great propor­tion of faultes deserue a greate proportion of pu­nishment, heauy faultes, heauie punishment, many faultes, many strypes, great faultes, great paynes: what reason haue you, why long continuance in faults should not deserue long continuance in Purgatorie? You aun­swere a short time in great paine, will satisfie for long penance in this life.

But where is the continuance of sinnes by Allens necessitie to be payed in proportion of long time in Purgatorie? So that in effecte, you aunswere, but [Page 156] without book y ^t the fornace of Purgatorie toward y ^t [...] of y ^e world must be heated whot, because y ^e soules [...] tary there the shorter time. With such inuentions [...] may answere any question. But I seeke a resolution [...] of the word of God, or good reason agreeable thereto.

To the 2. question, you answere, it is not [...] to Gods mercie, to remit such punishment at [...] [...] quest of his glorious Saintes, as he nowe doeth [...]or [...] Churches prayers. But seeing the Saintes know not [...] sodennes of that moment, howe shall they pray for [...] discharge of them that deserue to goe to purgatorie. [...] they pray for it continually, why pray they not, as [...] to discharge all other men from purgatory, as those th [...] shal remaine aliue at the comming of Christe? And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercie, it is not the matter in question, but howe it may stand with [...] iustice, which as you holde, requireth satisfaction by temporall punishment. For otherwise we know it stan­deth both with his iustice, and his mercie, y ^t they whiche obteine forgiuenes of their sinnes by Christ, should im­mediately after their death be receiued into the fellow­shippe of them that are likewise made righteous by him. Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei. lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moued, but not answered, and yet the place is corrupted and inforced, as Ludovicus Vives confesseth. In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth, a­gainst them which helde that God after the iudgement, would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints. In the 27. Chapter, which he also quoteth, there is no­thing to the question.

This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians, to mourne for the deade, much Fulke. more it is against the hope and faith of Christians, to pray for them. For by our prayer, we suppose them [Page 157] [...]e in miserie, whom the worde of God doeth testifie [...]e in happinesse, to be at rest, to be with Christ. Ioh. Apoc. 14. Bristow answereth: those Scriptures proue that they be straightway in happinesse, &c. as he [...] shewed, and I haue shewed the contrary, that they [...]roue it, notwithstanding all his impudent cauilati­ [...]. Secondly, he saith, it is not against hope to mourne, [...] to mourne as the Gentiles, which knowe not the [...]rrection. Neither do I say that all mourning is a­ [...]st hope, but such mourning as supposeth them to [...]n miserie, or to be lost, as the Papistes, & Paganes [...]? Our mourning for the delay of the kingdome God, as he vnderstandeth it, for the generall resurre­ [...]n, is for our present miserie, and therefore lawfull [...]e ioyned with hope. But mourning for the dead, whose happinesse the Scripture assureth vs, is a­ [...]nst faith, therefore contrary to hope.

[...]nother argument in the same place is: All places [...]cripture that forbidde prayers without faith, for­ [...]de prayers for the deade. For faith is an assurance [...] of the worde of God, &c.

This argument (saith Bristow) supposeth, that the [...]de of God is only Scripture. Yea verily it suppo­ [...], that only Scripture is the warrant of Gods worde, we haue before mainteined and also answered, to [...] Apocryphall Booke of the Machabees.

A third argument is, Pur. 281. We learne out of Gods [...]rde, that whatsoeuer we pray for according to his [...]ll, we shall obteine. 1. Iohn. 5. Prayers for the dead [...] not according to the will of God, and therefore they [...] not heard at al. Bristow denieth the minor, which he [...]th, I haue not proued. Yes verily, I proue it because y ^e [...]dgement followeth immediately after death: and in [...]dgement, God wil heare no prayers. And therefore [...]istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sinne not [...]to death, and shameful addition, Let him after his death [...]quest of Christ, and life shalbe giuen vnto him, is false, and [...]surde, although he saith, he hath giuen the plaine & smoth [...]se of the whole place, which is to be vnderstoode of [Page 158] men liuing and not of the dead. A smooth expos [...] If one see his brother sinne, he must pray for him a [...] his death. Againe, he vrgeth the present temps, who [...] knoweth his brother to sinne a sinne not to death, [...] one (saith Bristowe) that liued in schisme, but yet [...] reconciled before he died. O monstrous and more th [...] palpable blindenesse! be these verbes, liued, reconc [...] dyed, of the present or preterperfect temps, which t [...] deniest the Apostle to haue vsed. But omit the te [...] which he calleth him, a brother which liueth in schis [...] How much more soundly may I reason vpon the pre­sent temps? Saint Iohn biddeth vs pray for a brother [...] ­ning: but a brother sinning, is onely liuing: therefore S. Iohn biddeth vs pray only for a brother liuing. For they y ^t are in Purgarorie, neither deserue nor sinne, by your owne confession. As for the sinne against the holy Ghost, which we say is not to be prayed for at all, he threateneth often, to consute in the 12. Chapter. In the meane time it is euident that Purgatorie for any thing that is hitherto applyed by Bristow, remaineth confuted by sufficient argumentes and authoritie of the Scrip­tures.

Remitting the questions of the witnesses of Gods Fulke. worde, vnto fiue motives in the 10. Chapter: where I al­ledge that good workes do not iustifie two places, one of Saint Paul, another of Esaie, he holdeth the contrary, that works do iustifie. And first calling me a falsary, be­cause I recite not the very wordes of the Apostle, which was not my purpose, but to shew what we do affirme out of that texte of the Apostle, he saith, iustification by workes, is not denied by that text of Saint Paule, Rom. 3. We holde that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe, for it is to be vnderstoode of workes going before Baptisme, and not of workes following [Page 159] [...]aptisme, because Saint Iames saith a man is iustified of [...]orkes and not of faith onely. To this I aunswere [...]aint Paul speaketh of iustification before God: Saint [...]ames of iustification before men. Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by loue: Saint Iames of a bare know­ [...]edge, a barren and dead faith, a faith that is voide of good workes.

And that Saint Paule speaketh generally of all good workes, it is manifest by this reason, that he saith, boa­ [...]ting is excluded, not by the lawe of workes, but by the [...]awe of faith: what manner of exclusion were it, to shut [...]ut boasting for a moment, while one is baptized, and [...]mmediately after receiue it againe, by defending iusti­fication by workes. Againe he sayeth immediately after, [...]t is one God which shal iustifie circūcision which is of faith, and vncircumcision through faith, y ^t is the circum­ [...]ised, & the vncircumcised are al iustified by faith, as A­ [...]raham in both the states was iustified by faith, without the workes of the law, although, (as Iames sayth) he was [...]ustified before men, by his oblation, which was but a [...]riall of his faith, and obedience. Where the Apostle [...]ayeth, Tit. 3. not by the workes of righteousnes which we haue done, but according to his owne great mercie, [...]e saved vs by baptisme: Bristowe asketh, if I marke the temps. Yea, very well, he speaketh of workes be­fore faith. And doth it therefore followe, that works done after faith, doe iustifie? Saint Paule extendeth the saluation (which is sealed vnto vs by the lauer of newe birth, and renewing of the holy Ghoste, which he hath poured richly vpon vs by Iesus Christ our sauiour, vn­to eternall life: therefore it followeth, that beeing iusti­fied by his grace, we might be made heires according to the hope of eternall life. Vpon the 2. text Es. 64. I saide: the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silke, which is the iustification of Saintes, made white in the bloud of the lambe, but with the fil­thy ragges of mannes righteousnesse. Bristowe as­keth where I learned, to call the good workes done in the Church, the filthy ragges of mans righteousnesse? [Page 160] Verily, euen of Esaie who speaketh in the person of the Church: All we are as an vncleane person, and all our righteousnesse, as filthy ragges. For although God accept our workes, that are done in faith, and pardon their imperfection, yet when they are obtruded vnto him, to iustifie vs, he abhorreth them, as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the iustifications of the Saintes. Apoc. 19. are good workes, Bristowe would haue it appeare by conference of 1. Iohn. 3. He that worketh iustice is iust, where he reasoneth of the effectes of a iust man, & not of the cause. No flesh is iust by workes of the law, but by faith, by which God maketh iust, euen the vn­godly man. But how much better conference is it, to know, what the white [...] meaneth, which is the iusti­fication of Saintes, to compare it with other places of the same prophecie, as Apoc. 7. where it is shewed, howe the stoles of the faithful are made white, with the bloud of the lambe, and with the place of Saint Paule shewing how the Church is made white, and without spotte and wrinckle by the death of Christ? Ephe. 5.

Touching freewill, I saide, we beleeue, that man after his fall, hath not free will, no not aptnesse of will to thinke any thing that is good. 2. Cor. 3. Bristow tran­slateth the worde, we are not sufficient, but the text is [...] We are not apte, to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues, but our [...] aptnes, is of God. To this Bristowe replyeth, that naturall free will is not taken from vs, nor naturall aptnes of will. I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher, and not like a flat Pelagian. But I speake as a Christian of the fredome of mans will vnto good, which is none but bondage vnto euill, except he be regenerate, and then is his will fra­med of God in parte, to good, but not perfectly in this life, as regeneration is not perfectly finished be­fore the redemption of our bodies: as for freedome opposite to coaction, if Bristowe meane that, by retey­ning of free will, I graunt euery mans will to be free from constreint, but not from seruilitie vnto sinne. Whereof Saint complaineth, Rom 7.

[Page] Moreouer I saide Pur. 35. how should your free will [...]e mainteined, if Gods spirite haue any place, that di­ [...]ributeth to euerie one according to the good pleasure [...]f his owne will? 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes aunswere is, that God can worke his owne will vpon our willes, which is [...]ery true, but without working of Gods spirite, our will [...]ath no aptnesse vnto any good thing. Againe he saith, [...]hat Saint Paule speaketh of the giftes, that are freely gi­ [...]en, and not of them, that make a man acceptable, as [...]hough there were any gifts, which are not freely giuen. And it is euident that he speaketh generally of all wor­king of Gods spirite, euen of confessing Iesus to be Christ, and not of speciall graces onely. So that Bri­stowes aunswere is nothing to the purpose, or matter [...]n question. For I holde, that we haue no aptenesse vnto [...]ny good, of our owne freewill, but onely of the grace of God. Bristow saith, I imagine that God is not omni­ [...]otent, if we haue willes of our owne, which I neuer [...]enied: but that we haue willes of out owne vnto good, before they be framed therto by Gods spirit, is the thing [...] denye.

About good workes in speciall, namely prayer to Saintes, Bristowe. [...]astinge, merites.

Concerning inuocation of Saints, I saide Purg. 451. Fulke. wee call not vpon Saints, because we beleeue not in thē: for how should wee call vpon them in whom wee be­leue not? Rom. 10. To this (reseruing a pretended contradiction to the proper place) he saith: first that Saint Paule, did often inuocate & call vppon the faith­full, beseching them to pray for him, which is a toye to mocke with an Ape, for Saint Paule did not inuocate or pray to them as vnto them that knewe his hearte, and could helpe his greefe, but onely of charitie desireth their prayers. Secondly he asketh, where is any Scrip­ture, that we must beleeue in God onely? Forsooth, a­mongst many, this shal suffice, which is written in Iere­mie Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, [Page 162] and maketh flesh his arme, and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawfull to bêleue in Saints also, Bristowe quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said, the people beleeued God, and Moses his seruant, as though there were no difference betweene giuing credite to Gods Prophets, and beleeuing in them, which is to put our trust in them. The like I saie to the seconde place, quoted 2. Par. 20. where Iosaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people, if they giue credite to Gods Prophets, Credite Prophetis eius. But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation, he prouoketh vs to the Hebrue, belyke because of the preposition, beth, which is a miserable shift: Seing the Hebrue phrase is well knowen, to differ from the Latine, and English phrase, and especially from the sense of beleuing, that is tru­sting in God, which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature, which is not God.

He quoteth also Philemon, whose loue & faith the Apostle commendeth towardes the Lorde Iesu, and towards all his Saints, where euerie wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ, and loue to the Saints. But the scripture reacheth him to beleeue (he saith) in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood. Iohn. 14. Rom. 3. He will proue an Arian or a Nestorian shortly. The place of Iohn proueth the diuinity of Christ, because he is to be beleeued on, euen as God. And where the Apostle saith, that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood, he meaneth not that we must beleue in the blood of Christ, as it is a creature, but that the death and blood­shedding of Christ, is the meane of our reconciliation vnto God. But the Nicene Creede & Hieronyme, contra Lucif. vse the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam, to beleeue in the Church. I answere, they meane no more there­by, then they which vse the distinction Credere in Deum, Credere Deo, & Credere Deum, which Bristowe saith hath deceiued me. Augustine (as Bristowe confesseth) maketh it proper to God, that we beleeue in him

We beleeue not in Peter, we beleeue not in Paule. [Page 163] In Iohn. 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creede, or Hie­ronyme contrary thereto, that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church, but in God only. Therfore although they speak otherwise then Au­gustine, they meane not otherwise then he. Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creede, writeth both plain­ly and effectually: ‘ Sequitur namque post, &c. For it followeth after this saying: The holy Catholique Church, the remission of sinnes, the resurrection of the bodie: he saith not in the holy Catholique Church, in the remission of sinnes, in the resurrection of the fleshe. For if he had added, the preposition, In, the sense should haue bene made one, and the same with the for­mer articles. But euen in those termes truly, where faith is ordered of the diuinitie, it is saide, in God the father, and in Christ his sonne, and in the holy Ghost. But in the rest, where the speach is not of the Godhead, but of creatures and the mysteries, the preposition, In, is not added, that it should be said we must beleeue in the holy Church, but the holy Church: not as God, but as the Church gathered into God. And that men should beleue, that there is remission of sinnes, not in the remission of sinnes, that they should beleeue the re­surrection of the body, not in the resurrection of the body. Therefore by this syllable of the Preposition, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things diuine, are separated from things humane.’

Neuerthelesse, Bristowe saith, they beleue both in God, in Christ and in his Saints, and inuocate them all, though not all alyke, but then let him heare, what Cy­prian saith, ‘ De duplici Martyrio. Non credit in Deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam. He bele­ueth not in God, which placeth not in him alone, the hope of his whole felicity.’ Whervpon it followeth, y ^t they which beleeue in saints, & place some part of their hope of felicite in thē, & not in God alone, by his iudg­ment, & by y ^e iudgment of y ^e Apostle also beleeue not in God. Where I said, if Saints also are to be inuocated, then God alone knoweth not the heartes of all men, [Page 164] and God onely is not to be worshipped and serued, and Christ is not our onely Mediatour and Aduocate: Bri­stowe calleth it iangling, without allegations. I sup­posed these principles had bene sufficiently knowen to euerie learned Papist, without allegations, but seeing Bristowe will not take knowledge of them, because he knoweth not how to shift his handes of them. For the first, my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Salomon in his prayer sayth vnto God: What prayers or supplications shalbe made of any man, or of all thy people Israel, when euerie one shal knowe the plague in his own hart, and stretche foorth his handes in this house, Heare thou then in heauen in thy dwelling place, and be merciful, and doe and giue euery man according to all his wayes as thou knowest his heart, for thou onely knowest the harts of al the children of men. For the second, that God only is to be worshiped and serued, it is the saying of our sauiour Christ, Math. 4. & Luk 4. Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God, and him only shalt thou serue.

That Christe onely is our Mediator and Aduocate, Saint Paule testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediatour of God and men, the man Ie­sus Christ, in which place he speaketh of Prayer, sup­plications, intercessions, &c. to be made for all men. And Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 2. If any man sinne, we haue an aduocate with the father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins. But, saith Brist, as I say to Ambrose, & others whom I confesse to be of the true Church, so must I saie it to Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. for in­uocating the holy Angells. But I finde not that Iohn did inuocate the holy Angels, in that place, although the seuen spirites from whom he wisheth grace, should not be the holy Ghost, but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost. For he that prayeth that God will sende raine from heauen, doth not inuocate heauen. But I must saie the same to God him self, for making an An­gell to be worshiped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapiter, where I haue told him mine answere. [Page] likewise to the Angell Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saintes, and to the 24. Seniors which had sweete odours, that is, prayers in bowles, &c. But there is no such neede, the Angell Apoc. 8. representeth Christe, the onely high priest that hath authoritie to stande at the altar in heauen, and offer incense, and to present the prayers of the Churche, that they may be acceptable to God. Heb. 13. The Elders are the Churche of God, in the whole world, whose prayers and supplications, only our sauiour Christ maketh acceptable. But it maketh nothing against our Mediatour to God, saith Bristowe, though we are and haue neuer so many Mediatours, so y ^t all make suite to God by him. Then it maketh no mat­ter howe many petie Gods we haue, so one be principal, as Plato taught. Againe he saith: it is nothing against God alone, to be worshipped, so that we worshippe none but for him. If this were true, it were lawfull to wor­ship the Diuel, because hee is Gods minister, and hath great power vnder him: yea our Sauiour Christ had not aunswered his temptation, when he required to be wor­shipped, as one that had all the glorie of the world com­mitted by God to him to bestowe at his pleasure, in saying it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy God, and him only shalt thou serue. Last of all, he saith it is nothing against God aboue, to know our harts, so y ^t all others knowe them by him. But Salomon reasoneth that God onely is to be called vpon, because he onely knoweth the heartes of all men. And where findeth Bristowe, that all others, or any one by God, knoweth the heartes of all men? To conclude, the worde onely, excludeth no more with Bristowe, then he list to ad­mitte by his blinde distinctions, which if they may be permitted against the plaine sense and wordes of the Scriptures, nothing shalbe left proper to God, nothing proper to our Sauiour Christe, nothing proper to any thing, that the Scripture maketh peculiar vnto it.

The next title is fasting, about which Bristowe re­porteth, that I say: Purg. 391. You are they that attend to spirites of errors, & doctrine of deuils, forbidding to [Page 166] marry, & abstaining, or commaunding to abstaine from meates, which God hath created to bee receiued with thanksgiuing. 1. Tim. 4. There is the brandmarke of Ro­mish religion, that all the water in Tiberis, nor in the Ocean sea, shall not be able to wash out. Against this: Soft alitle (sayeth Bristowe) and you shall see mee drawe inough & inough againe, euen out of your owne puddle, to wash all sufficiently. But what draweth hee? I confesse that Aerius & Iouinian condemned fasting or fasting dayes? what then? Abstinence from certeine meates is a que­stion distinct from fasting, which is abstinence from all meates. But Iouinian (sayeth hee) taught absti­nence from certeine meates to profite nothing. Well: Aerius contrariwise taught abstinence from fleshe to be a religious matter, as you Papistes doe. For to ab­steine from wine, fleshe, fishe, spices, fruites, or any thing which perteyneth to sobrietie, is not to thinke it vn­lawfull to eate or drinke any of these, at this tyme, or that time, as it is thought of you Papistes, and a mat­ter of more holynesse, to fill your belly with fishe, then with fleshe, although the fish, wyne, fruites, spices, and such like confections as you eate, be tenne times more dangerous vnto sobrietie and chastitie, then a piece of beef [...] or bacon, which a poore man eateth on a fry­day to satisfie his hunger, and giueth God thankes for it. Your publike admitting of all incentiue meates & drinkes, except flesh or white meate on your fasting dayes, sufficiently declareth, that neither fasting nor chastisement of mens bodyes is your intent: but as the Apostle sayeth, false speaking in hypocrisie. But whome and what doeth Saint Paul meane (sayeth Bri­stowe?) Hee aunswereth, the Manichees, the Tacia­nistes, and other heretikes, which sayde, that certeine meates were the creatures of the diuell. Nay Bri­stowe, not them onely, nor principally; but all other heretikes that sayde, fleshe was vncleane, although they confessed it to be the creature of God, as the Ae­riaus and Priscillianistes, and specially the Papistes, [Page] which vnder pretence of holynesse, as fasting and cha­stitie, commaunde to abstaine from meates and mar­riage. For they that abstaine from these things, say­ing they are the creatures of the diuell, speake not a lye in hypocrisie, but an open blasphemie. As for the example of them, whose voluntarie abstinence from meates or marriage, Saint Augustine defendeth, contra Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. cannot excuse you, which for­bid meates and marriage, more imperiously to some men at all times, and to all men at some times, then e­uer the Manichees did to their cleargie, or priests, which they called perfect ones.

Another saying of myne, Art. 46. Bristowe repea­teth: If Iouinian taught that fasting, abstinence from certeine meates, and other bodily exercises, of them selues profite little, his doctrine agreeth with the doctrine of Saint Paul, 1. Timothie. 4. But if he taught, as hee is charged, that such thinges profite nothing at all, wee agree not with him in that opi­nion.

To this (Bristowe sayeth) I woulde fayne wype myne handes of Iouinians heresie, but it will not bee: For his heresie was, that fasting and abstinence is not more meritorious then eating with thankesgi­uing. If you call this heresie, I am nothing asha­med of it: there is no more merite in the one than in the other. But howe prooue you that was his he­resie? Forsooth Augustine De dogm. Eccles. Cap. 68. so sayeth. But who shall graunt vnto him, that bastarde collection to be of Saint Augustines penning? Well then the vndoubted Augustine, ad Quodvult enim sayeth: meritis adaequabat, hee made equall to the merites, of chaste and faithfull matrimonies, the vir­ginitie, &c.

But hee that is acquainted with Saint Augustines writinges, shall perceiue that by merites, often times he meaneth not as the Papistes doe, the desert of good works, but y ^e dignitie, excellency, commendation. [Page 168] For merites in that signification as the Papistes vse, he alwayes condemneth them in the Pelagians, and all o­ther, saying that God crowneth or rewardeth in vs his giftes, not our merites. For our merites are nothing but sinnes in Psal. 70. Con. 2. in Psa. 101. in Psa. 144.

Now haue we to see, what Saint Paul calleth bodily exercise. Bristowe sayth: walking, ryding, hunting, haw­king, and such like exercises, vsed for preseruation of mens bodies. And thinke you Timothie, which to cha­stice his bodie, vsed to absteine from wine, was doubted of S. Paul, lest he should giue him selfe ouermuch to walking, riding, hawking, hunting? At least wise, heare what S. Ambrose writeth vppon the text, ‘ Exercitium autē corporale, &c. He saith, that bodily exercise is profitable to litle. For to fast and abstaine from meates, the au­thoritie of the creator remaining, doth not profit much, except godlinesse be added vnto these things, &c.’ Let Bristowe s [...]ye, that S Ambrose knewe not white from black, as he saith of mee, and looke better to his confe­rence, of S. Paules abstinence, 1. Cor. 9. from all things y ^e were offensiue. But where he concludeth, the measure of all abstinence is to tame the bodie, and bring it in sub­iection to the spirite, but with such moderation, that it fainte not in our necessarie worke, I agree with him, that so it ought to be, but that so it is not, nor yet en­tended in the popish commaundment of abstinence, as I haue shewed before sufficiently: As for the fasting of y ^t children of the bridegrome, like to the fastes prescri­bed by the disciples of Saint Iohn, and of the Pharisees, it is impertinent to speake of, where y ^e question is not of Christian fasting, but of apostaticall abstinence from meates and marriage: although Christian fasting, is nothing like to the Pharisaicall fasting, but onely in refraining from meate, in the ende and manner alto­gether differing and vnlike. Math. 6. Luke. 18.

[Page 169] Of the Sacraments in generall, I say: Pur. 450. Wee Fulke. [...]eleeue that there are but two sacraments of the newe [...]estament, baptisme, and the Lordes supper, instituted by Christe. 1. Cor. 10. Bristowe asketh, if these be sacra­ments of the newe testament instituted by Christ, which Saint Paul speaketh of baptisme in the clowd and s [...], and of the spirituall meate and drinke in Manna and the rocke. Because he doeth onely aske, it shall suffice to aunswere onely, yea, they are sacraments of the newe testament, and instituted by Christe, the mediatour of the newe testament, by which our fathers were saued, although by Christe comming in the fleshe, they were [...]nstituted differing somewhat in externall fourme and matter, though in inwarde grace and signification they were all one.

Secondly, supposing they are sacraments of the new [...]estament, by Christ instituted, he asketh what reason [...]t is, to argue of one place negatiuely, onely two are [...]amed, ergo onely two are instituted. I aunswere, the argument is not of the onely naming of two, but of the whole argument of the Apostle, which is, to proue, that [...]he fathers in participation of the sacramentes, were e­quall with vs, which were not sufficiently proued, if ha­uing named onely two, there were other fiue, wherein wee are superior to them: So that the naming of two, is in this place the excluding of all other except those two. Nowe let vs discusse Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seuen. Wee read of the other fiue in other places. Where I pray you? Of Con­firmation, Iohn the 7. You reade more then I can finde there named or signified, except you meane of the increase of Gods spirite in more excellent and euident graces, which the faithfull shoulde receiue after the resurrection and ascension of Christe, which differeth farre from confirmation of children by imposition of handes.

Of Penance, you read Iohn. 20. Of power giuen to the Apostles to remit and reteine sinnes: I reade but of [Page 170] [...] [Page 171] [...] [Page 170] auricular confession and satisfaction, I reade not.

Of extreme vnction, you reade Iac. 5: of annoynting the sicke with oyle, which by a speciall gift recoue­red health of body, as well as remission of sinnes, at the prayer of the faithfull, I reade: but of anealing men de­speratly sicke, which hath no hope of bodily recouerie, I reade not.

Of orders, you reade, Math. 26. but I reade nothing at all, although I reade that the Apostles were com­maunded to continue the celebration of his supper in­stituted by him, which were before ministers of his sa­cramentes and preachers of his worde; but of Bennet and Collet, coniurer, subdeacon, or masse priest, I reade not in all the Scripture, nor of Deacon in that Cha­pter.

Of Matrimonie, both yet and I reade Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ, but long before in Paradise, and is no more a sacrament of the newe te­stament, then the raynebowe, which yet with the co­uenant thereof remaineth in vse among Christians. But you confesse you reade not in those places, that they are sacramentes, no more doe you reade, 1. Cor. 10. that baptisme, or the Lordes supper are sacraments or any where else. This is a stale quarrell, of the name of sacramentes, which is not founde in Scripture, al­though the thing signified by the name, that is y ^e seales of Gods promises, and the name of signe of Gods co­uenants be often founde.

But your laste refuge is, that the Apostle speaketh onely of the firste entrance into Christianitie, which in antiquitie was by baptisme, confirmation, the com­plement of baptisme, and the Euchariste, and there­fore speaketh not of the rest. Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrarie to the Apostles purpose, which was to shewe, that the externall sacramentes of Gods grace, without a godly life, woulde not serue to as­sure vs, that God was pleased withvs: it is cleare, that the Corinthians, among whome Saint Paul so long [Page 171] had preached, coulde not bee without all other sacra­ments, if any other were. They had children to bee confirmed, they themselues were married, elders were to bee ordered, offenders by penaunce were to bee reconciled, manie were sicke, and some were fallen a sleepe, to bee anealed. And Saincte Paule saith expressely, they were behinde in no grace or gifte of Gods spirite. 1. Corinth. 1. Wherefore, that they were younge nouices newely entred the barres, and not knightes ex­ercised in battell, it is a dreame of Bristowes drowsi [...] heade, and no trueth to bee verified of the Corin­thians.

Secondly I say, of the sacramentes in generall, that they giue not grace ex opere operato, of the worke wrought, but after the faith of the receiuer and accor­ding to the election of Go [...]. [...]. Corin. 10. Againe, howe should the sacrament giue grace of the worke wrought, if faith were requisite in them that receiue them? This argument, saith Bristowe, holdeth aswell against the working of Christs passion. Why sir, the passiō of Christ giueth not grace, but to the faithfull and electe of God.

But faith, you say, is no work, nor instrumēt, but only a dispofition as drynesse in wodde, that the fire wor­keth vppon. I will not enter into any philosophi­call disputation with you, whether it bee drinesse or moysture in the wodde that the fire worketh vpon, per­haps you thinke, that water is moyster then ayre, which error, if you had no more, cannot make you an here­tike.

But I meruaile, what cause you will make faith, seing you exclude it from efficients, except you make it a matter, for the sacraments to worke vpon, or else I know not what you meane by y ^t your disposition lyke drienesse in woode, which in deede is the thinne ayer, more apte to receiue inflammations, then the thicke water, but perhaps you make it onely a potentia, like materia prima, for you adde, that by our indisposition wee doe not put obicem.

[Page 172] But you hold that the sacraments giue grace of the work wrought, without the good motion of the vser, onely so hee doe no part obicem, that is, so he doe not withstand the working, as if a man be baptised sleeping, and thin­king nothing of it. Neuerthelesse seing the scripture of­ten affirmeth that God worketh in vs by faith, faith must needes bee an instrumentall efficient, when you haue saide all that you can, except you will teach vs newe gra­mer and Lògike. You confesse the scripture sayth, that by beleeuing and other good actions, wee worke our owne saluation, Phil. 2. as by way of meriting, but it saith not that we worke the effect of any sacrament: nei­ther doe I say, that wee worke the effecte of any sacra­ment, but that God worketh in vs according to faith, which he giueth vs, and his election. You say further; that the scripture teacheth, that the passion of Christ gi­ueth to our deedes vertue to merite: where is that scrip­ture written? for vntill you shewe me where it is writ­ten, I will say still to you as I saide to Allen, y ^e Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemie, beleeuing stedfast­ly, that we are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptiō of Christ Iesus, without respect of our works. Rom. 3. 4.

But yet Bristowe will make men beleeue, that I shew manifolde ignorance, where I say Purg. 35. The meane on Gods behalfe by which we are made partakers of the fruites of Christes passion, and so graffed into his bodie, is his holy spirite of promise, which is the earnest and as­suring of our inheritaunce: who worketh in vs faith, as the onely meane by which the righteousnesse of Christ is applyed vnto vs, Ephe. 1. And as for the sacramentes, (which you seeme to make the only conduites of Gods mercie) we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seales of Gods promises giuen for the confir­mation of our faith, as was circumcision to Abraham, when he was iustified before through faith. Rom. 4.

Bristowes eyes being daseled at the cleere light of this trueth, turneth his heade away from the matter, and wrangleth against diuerse points of Caluinisme, as hee [Page 173] saith, but in deede of meere Bristowisme. For Caluin neuer helde any such matter as he imagineth: He asketh whether this be to say, that all men are iustified before they come to the sacrament, as though Caluin said they were. Whereas a great number are iustified neither be­fore, nor after the receipt of them. But this is to say, that as Abraham was iustified by faith, without respect of the sacrament, so are all they that are iustified, iustified by faith, without respect of the sacrament. Secondly he asketh, whether all sacraments be seales of such a mat­ter. Yea verely, or else saint Paul proueth the iustificati­on of the Gentiles by faith, very feebly, after the exam­ple of Abraham. Thirdly hee asketh whether all Iewes were iustified, before they came to circumcision, which I neuer hearde any man to affirme, but that as many Iewes as were iustified, were iustified by faith, as Abra­ham was, circumcision no more regarded in their iusti­fication, then it was in the iustification of Abraham. Last of all he asketh, whether circumcision were to the Iewes a seale of such a matter? still he calleth it such a matter, because he dare not name iustification by faith. O the stinge of a wicked conscience. But to the question. I aunswere that to y ^e Iewes which were iustified by faith, circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, which is imputed to them, as it was to Abraham with­out merite, or respect of their circumcision.

Other pointes of mine ignorance, he saith, are about the holy spirite of promise, whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the meane, to make vs parta­kers of the fruites of Christes passion: Item the meane to graffe vs into his bodie: Item, that it worketh in vs faith. In the conclusion, he noteth the ignorance of the Protestantes, where they holde, this spirite promised to be nothing else, but the gifte of tongues, that is to say, Christs grea­test gifte, to be his least gifte. Out vpon the shamelesse lyer, which of the Protestantes canst thou name, that so hol­deth? We all holde that the holy spirite of promise, Ephes. 1. is the spirite of adoption, by which we are assu­red of eternall life. Rom. 8. And as for the spirite, pro­phecyed [Page 174] by Ioel, and Iohn Baptist, promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension, we holde not to be specially of the spirit of adoption, which the Apostles & al y ^e faith­full had before Christes death, and much lesse of that spirit, which your Bishops giue by imposition of hands, in their counterfeit confirmation, which is the spirit of vanitie, whose fruites appeare not in any of the recei­uers: But we holde that promised gifte of Gods spirit, to be that wonderful reuelation of knowledge and vnder­standing & vtterāce in all states & degrees of true Chri­stians generally, beside a great number of particular giftes, not perpetuall, bestowed vpon the Church in di­uerse speciall members, for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel. As for your conference of scriptures, whereof you prate so much, is a meere confu­sion of matters of diuerse senses. According to which manner of conference, not weighing the sense of euery place, by the proper circumstances thereof, but follow­ing onely a sounde and similitude of some wordes, eue­rie heretike might colour his heresie, were it neuer so absurde, as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth, that they patched diuerse sentences together, to make a shewe, as though their heresie were contained in holy write: which was nothing else, but as if a man brea­king a goodly image of a king in peeces, shoulde of the peece after his owne manner ioyned together, make the image of a dogge, or a foxe or other foule beaste, Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirite of promise, wherewith the faithfull are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirite of tongues and prophecie which came vppon the twelue, on whom saint Paul layed his hands. Acts 19. The last errour of faith hee chargeth mee, to bee the onely meane, which hee saith, is no meane but a disposition, hee thinketh it sufficiently discouered be­fore, wherevnto I also thinke that I haue made answere sufficiently.

Concerning baptisme, I say it is necessary for al chri­stians Fulke. [Page 175] to receiue, that are not by necessity excluded from it. 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith, it is necessarie for all men, but when it cannot be actually had, the effectuall desire of it supplyeth the want: which desire infantes haue not, and therfore onely the actu­all hauing of baptisme, doth quicken them in Christ, being dead in Adam. Touching the saluation of infants of the faithful dying without baptisme, I said nothing but by implica­tion, that there is no such necessitie of Baptisme, that the want of the outwarde sacrament shoulde condemne the seede of the faithful, perteining to gods election & coue­nant, where there is no default, either of contempt or neglect of it. Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth y ^e effectuall desire in men of yeares to supply the want, which yet y ^e wordes of his text, Iam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authoritie of his doctors, that condemne all vnbaptised infants wil not beare, what reason is it, why he should not extende his supply, vnto the effectuall de­sire of those infants, parents, and friends, whose faith he acknoledgeth to supplie the want of actuall faith in the infants that are baptised? Beside this hee saith that he did mark wel ynough where I said y ^t the sacramēts giue grace according to y ^e election of God. As though all in­fants baptised, & so dying be not of Gods electe, or that some be not saued, although they be baptised, & asketh what scripture I haue for this geere? But in deede he bow leth at the wrong marke, for in saying y ^t the sacramentes tooke effect according to y ^e faith of y ^e receiuer and accor­ding to gods election, I ment, y ^t God in baptisme giueth grace to infāts, which haue no actual faith of their owne, according to his eternal electiō in mercy. But whether al infants baptised & so dying be of y ^e nūber of gods elect, as I do not know, so I wil not contend. But this I know, that if they were not elected of God before the founda­tions of the world were laide, the receiuing of baptisme, cannot make them Gods elect. Ephe. 1. Where Bristowe vrgeth the saying of saint Peter, 1. Pet. 3. baptisme saueth vs now, it is a weake argument to proue the baptisme of infants, either to saue them all that receiue it, or to condemne all that receiueth it not. For explicating him [Page 176] selfe of what baptisme hee speaketh, he addeth, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as you woulde say, outwarde washing, which is the externall sacrament, but the interrogation of a good conscience towardes God, which is the thing signified by outwarde washing, and yet not founde in infantes, but in them that haue knowledge, among whom, whosoeuer hath it not, hee shall no more bee saued then any was preserued from drowning that was not in the Arke of Noah. In which Arke one at leaste was saued from bodily drowning, which was not inwardly baptised with the spirite vnto saluation. The figure of whom, I might vrge as pro­bable as Bristow doth of the whole number saued, from drowning, like vnto whom al they that are baptised are brought into the visible Church, although some with Cham, are not members of the mysticall bodie of Christ.

Touching the Eucharist I saide, Christ is present at Bristowe. his supper, but not after a grosse and Capernaicall ma­ner Fulke. but as he was presēt in Manna to the fathers. 1. Cor. 10. Bristowes aunswere is, it was a spirituall meate, a spirituall drinke, for it signified Christ. But Saint Paule saith expresly it was Christ, and the Rocke was Christe. But, est, is, taken for significat, where it pleaseth the Pa­pists, where it pleaseth them not, it is blasphemie, im­pudencie, falsification &c. Further he saith, they all did eate one, and the same meate, but not that they and we eate one, & the same meate. Although Saint Augustine is cleare, they did eate one, and the same that we eate, yet I will proue it by argument out of the Scripture, that which we eate and that which they did eate was, & is Christ, ergo they and we eat one and the same meate, euen as they were baptised with the same baptisme: for the church of God neuer had but one baptisme. As for the Capernaites, he saith, I vnderstande not the chapter, Iohn 6. and so onely telleth his fantasie vppon it. But [Page 177] what mine vnderstanding is of that chapter, & also mine answere to al popish reasons, falsely gathered thereout: let it appeare in my confutation of Heskins & Sanders.

Concerning transubstantiation, I said, Of all follyes this is the greatest, that when the Papistes haue prated neuer so long of the sacrifice of breade and wine, at the laste they wil haue no breade nor wine in their sacrifice. First he saith, this wise argument, proueth the papistes & their fathers the old writers, to be fooles. To this I re­plye, those old writers, which are none of the papistes fa­thers, although they supposed Melchizedechs bread and wine, to bee a figure of our sacrament, yet they were not such fooles to denye breade and wine to remaine in our sacrament. But for answere, Bristow saith, that I my selfe confesse, y ^t the drink of the water of the rock, was a figure of our drink in Christs Chalice, although that were wa­ter, & this is no water, no nor made of water, how much more, might Melchizedechs bread and wine be a figure of it, although there bee no breade nor wine in it, consi­dering it was made of breade and wine, and retaineth the formes of breade and wine? &c. But where hath he this confession of mine? I neuer saide the water of the Rocke was a figure of Christes cuppe, but euen Christs cuppe it selfe, and the very bloud of Christ in a sacrament, to the faithfull, as the wine in the cuppe is to vs. For Christ did euen then feede his true members with his flesh & bloud vnto eternall life. Iohn. 6.

Because we say, the marriage of votaries is sinne and Bristowe. no marriage. Fulke saith, we are the forbidders of marriage, Fulke. that saint Paul speaketh off. 1. Tim. 4. But this saith Bristow, I haue shewed to pertaine to the Eucratites, & Maniches &c. and I haue shewed that it pertaineth more properly to the Papistes. But saint Augustine aunswereth them & Fulke at once, saith Bristowe, ‘ Cont. Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. Ille prohibet nubere, qui hoc malum esse dicit: Hee forbiddeth to marrie, y ^t saith it is a naughtie thing, non qui huic bono aliud [Page 178] melius, anteponit, and not he, which to this good thing, preferreth an other better thing.’ Well, if he forbidde to marrie and to teache the doctrine of Deuills, which saith marriage is a naughty thing, then you Papists, which (as you confessed before) saie that the mariage of votarics is sinne, saie it is a naughty thing, and consequently forbidding to marry doe teache the doc­trine of Deuills: neither can you shift a waie to saie, you doe not affirme, that which is marriage indeede, to be a sinne but that which is falsely called marriage: for you saie euen as the Manichees in this point, it is a naughty thing, for the Clergie, and them that be in ho­ly orders to marry, and therefore you compell them to the vowe, and forbidde mariage to all that will enter into those orders, and also into moonkery, which you call religion, as though holynes and religion could not stande with marriage. And therefore to you, as well as to the Manichees Saint Augustine speaketh in the. 4. Chapter of that Booke, in defense of the catholique Church which in his time forbadde not marriage, nor compelled any to virginity. ‘ Hoc nobis primum responde [...] ­tis velim, &c. I would you should answere this thing first vnto vs, whither it be the doctrine of Deuills to make any virgins at all, or only to make them by pro­hibition of marrying? if by prohibition, it perteyneth nothing to vs, for we our selues doe iudge it as foolishe a thinge to staie one that is willinge (to be a virgine) as it is a wicked & verie vngodly thing to compel one that is vnwilling.’ As for the preferring of virginity, in them that haue the gift, and for whom it is conuenient, for setting forth of the kingdome of God, before marriage, according to the doctrine of Saint Paule, wee agree with Saint Augustine and dissent from Iouinian, if his doc­trine were as it is reported. But if Iouinian taught (as I saide) Ar. 45. that such as coulde not conteyne, though they had vowed virginity, should neuerthelesse be married, this was the doctrine of Saint Paul, it is bet­ter to marry then to burne. And although Ambrose & Augustine, account such marriage to be adultery, or [Page 179] worse then adultery, yet the holy Ghost saith: marriage is honorable in all men and the bedde vndefiled. Heb. 13. And for them that cannot conteine, although they haue vowed virginity, it is better to marry then to burne, 1. Cor. 7. except Bristowe thinke it better to quenche the fier of lust, with fornication and vncleanes: For all men cannot conteine, neither can all men make them selues chaste for the kingdome of God. Math 19, But this conference of Scripture pleaseth not Bri­stowe, for he counteth it none at all, comparing mee for want of conference of scripture to a cloude with­out water: well then, let vs heare what sweete dewe commeth from Bristowes cloude.

First hee asketh what it is to burne. Hee aunswe­reth, to bee troubled with the pricking of the fleshe, say the heretikes. ‘Not so, say wee: for Sainct Paul himselfe was troubled much, with such pricking, 2. Corin. 12. and yet hee was not bidden to marrie, when hee prayed so instantly against it, but it was saide vnto him by Christ, My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is perfected in infirmitie, &c.’ First he bely­eth vs, whome hee calleth heretikes, to say that to burne, is nothing else but to bee troubled with the pricking of the flesh: for wee holde, there is no praise of virginitie, where there is no naturall prouocation vnto luste. But to burne wee say, is to bee so trou­bled, as men are, that are inflamed with lust, and haue no lawfull meanes to quench the same.

Secondly, beholde howe shamefully hee slaundereth Saint Paul, to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh, where he complayneth of the generall rebelli­on of the fleshe, against the spirite, the messenger of Sa­tan to buffet him, euen that lawe of his members, of which hee complayneth Rom. 7. which brought him captiue vnder the lawe of sinne. As for that pricking, which Bristowe speaketh of to bee so much in a bodie so exercised with afflictions and trauels, with hunger, and fastings, and in a man of such age, as Sainct [Page 180] Paul was at that time, when he wrote vnto the Corinthi­ans the second Epistle, it is altogether incredible. And confessing a generall rebellion of the fleshe, against the spirite vnto all sinne, it is not probable that he should in this place, complaine of that one kinde onely, from which age and weakenesse of bodie woulde priuiledge him, if godly exercise did not ridde him. What is it then to burne, saith Bristowe, or to be burned? saint Paul himselfe telleth vs, it is, not to containe: If they doe not conteine, let them marrie, for it is better to marrie then to burne, for marri­age is honorable and vndefiled, but fornicatours and adulterers God will iudge. The conference whereof is this: Let married folke vse their owne bedde, &c. and let the vnmarried folke enter into marriage, rather then not to containe, to burne, to commit fornication. So that to burne, not to containe, and to com­mit fornication, by Bristowes conference, is all one: So that hee which committeth not fornication, although hee bee continually inflamed with filthie luste, yet by Bristowes iudgement, hee burneth not, he is continent, hee is a virgine. Againe, if not to containe, and to burne be nothing else, but to commit fornication, it woulde followe in saint Paules wordes, that men are not commaunded to marrie, before they haue made triall of their incontinence by committing fornication, which seeing it is horrible absurditie: it followeth, that the Apostle to preuent fornication, exhorting men to marrie which containe not, seeing it is better to marrie then to burne, vnderstandeth incontinence and burning, for an inflāmation of lust, without fornication, or actu­all filthinesse committed.

But whatsoeuer saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that doe not containe, hee meaneth it of such as haue made no vowe to liue vnmarried. For of those that haue vowed, his sentence is (saith Bristowe) that they incurre damnation if they marrie, because they haue broken their first faith: 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine hee vnderstandeth for their last vowe of wi­dowhood, notwithstāding, that I shewed, both by confe­rence in the same chapter, by the title of, first, and by [Page 181] the name of faith, that it cannot properly bee so taken, but for the faith of Christianitie, euen as he saith: if a­ny prouide not for his family, he hath denied the faith. Where I finde the word [...] in the scripture is neuer v­sed for a vowe or promise made to God. Bristowe aun­swereth, why? doe not you say your selfe, that both there & once afore in y ^e same chapt. it is vsed for y ^e vow or pro­mise made in baptisme? no sir. I neuer said it. I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of bap­tisme, and Christianitie, except you wil say that the faith of Christianitie embraced by baptisme, is nothing else but a vowe or promise made to God. Againe, can you remember neuer a place (saith he) where the faith of god is the promise of God? looke Rom. 3. yea sir, I remem­ber [...] taken for the trueth of Gods promise, but I finde not yet [...] taken for the vowe or promise made to God, which because you your selfe, so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures, coulde not finde, you cur­ [...]olled my saying, repeating my wordes for a vowe or pro­mise, and leauing out that I added, made to God. The La­tine phrase of the faith or promise of marriage vsed by Saint Augustine and other Latine writers, aunswereth not to my demaunde, of the vse of the greeke worde [...] ­ [...] in the scriptures: which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission, it is more like he woulde haue called it [...], their for­mer faith, and not [...] their first faith. Againe the conference whiche Bristowe vrgeth, of them that are alreadie turned back after Satan, most aptely a­greeth to thē that had forsaken not onely their widow­hood, but also their Christianitie, Loe, saith Bristowe, your selfe are compelled to graunt, that which you denyed, to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode? and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying? ergo, Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying: so inuincible is the texte, in our exposition. Fulke, it goeth harde with you. And all this, be­cause I saide such wanton young huswiues, proceede so farre, that at length they forsake widowhood, Christia­nitie and al. Saide I onely because they forsake widow­hoode? [Page 182] No, but because they waxe wanton against Christ, because they haue forsaken the first faith, which is Christianity, and not only because they haue mar­ried, and giuen ouer theyr widowhoode: whereof whe­ther there were a vowe or no, it is not proued. Although it be probable, there was a promise made vnto the Church, because such poore widowes susteined of the Churches almes, were imployed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons. Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sicke and impotent, that men should be collectors and distributers of the almes, but womē also were necessary, for diuers seruices about them which were not conuenient for men to exercise. But if I should graunt vnto you, that the first faith here, signifieth the last vowe of widowhoode, yet it folow­eth not of this place, that all that haue married after rashe vowes made to the contrary, are damned. For Saint Paule speaketh not of them that were constreined by the necessity of incontinencie (which it is not euery mans gift to auoyde) to flye to the generall remedy ap­poynted by God, for auoyding of fornication, that eue­ry man should haue his wife, and euery woman should haue her husband, without any exception: but only of them he speaketh, y ^t waxed wanton against Christ, which being liuing to the worlde, were dead to God. What is this against them, which ignorantly rashly or constrai­nedly made a vowe to performe, that which they were not able? namely continence or chastity, without ma­riage, the breache whereof is not only by mariage, but much more by fornication and vncleanes, yea by con­tinuall burning, without actuall filthinesse, which with Saint Paule is incontinence.

And yet the Papistes, as though there were no way to breake such vowe, but by marriage, which is the best meane of chastitie, for them that can not be chaste in single life, crie out damnatiō only against married vota­ries, affirming that infinite whoredoms and vncleanes, are lesse breach of vow, then marriage, and the marriage [Page 183] of votaries to be no marriage. Yet Saint Ambrose, who counteth it an adulterie against Christe, for a vowed virgine to marrie, counteth the marriage of such a one, in respect of her bodily husbande to be lawfull matri­mony, and a much lesse fault, to enter into mariage, then once to committe fornication. Ad Virg. Laps. Cap. 5. And more plainly Saint Augustine which counteth the mariages of such, of whom the Apostle speaketh to be worse then adulteries, in respect of the breache of theyr vowe, made to Christ: yet counteth them to be mariages, and no adulteries, and detesteth the separati­on of such married persons, De bono Vid [...]. Cap. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Where Allen railing against our Bishops, and as he termeth our disordered newe ministery, saith, that ere euer they be well warmed in theyr benisices, they must for the most part, as it were Annexum ordini, haue a wife. I answered, Belyke Saint Paule taketh marriage to be so annexed to the order of an ecclesiasticall minister, y ^t he neuer describeth the perfect paterne of a Bishop or Deacon, but one of the first pointes is, that he be the hus­band of one wife. Bristowe saith, I alledge the text to salue our Bishops itching lust: and more blasphemously speaketh Allen against our ministers marriage, whom yet they account to be but laie men. Where are they nowe that saye mariage is a naughty thing? But con­cerning the terme of Annexum ordini, although I saide in derision therof, Belyke, &c. as before, yet I ment not, that it was necessary for euery perfect minister to be married, but that none is more perfect, then they that are married. Notwithstanding some men considering that the Apostle requireth hospitality, that is the cha­ritable entertainment of poore straungers, as a speciall vertue in a Bishoppe or minister of the Church, thinke marriage to bee more conuenient then sole life, for that degree, because diuerse partes of hospitality, of whiche Saint Paule maketh, the washinge of the Saintes feete, one, and suche like, are not conue­nient but for women to exercise, whome it were [Page 184] inconuenient, that a Bishop should kepe in his house, and not be a maried man. But Bristowe will teache me to vnderstand, what Saint Paule meaneth by the hus­band of one wife, by conference of that place. 1. Tim. 5. where he will haue a widowe to be chosen, such a one, quae fuit vnius viri vx [...]r, as hath bene the wife of one husband: so that he requireth in a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, to be made, that he haue had only one wife. Indeede Bristowe: I learne by this conference, that Saint Paule who knewe how to write his minde in Greeke, although he had not spoken expresly of the behauiour of Bishops, and Deacons wiues. 1. Tim. 3. yet vsing the present temps, in speaking of Bishops, El­ders, and Deacons, to be the husbande of one wife, & the preterperfect temps, in speaking of widowes, which haue had one husband did meane, that he requireth such a one to be made Bishop, Elder or Deacon, which pre­sently hath a wife: and not which had a wife, that at the time of their election were deade, as the widowes hus­bande. It behoueth a Bishop [...] to be vnreprouable, the husband of one wife, sober, &c. except you will like­wise say, a Bishop must be such a one, as hath bene sober, &c. although he be not so nowe. Againe, [...] let Dea­cons be the husbandes of one wife. And againe Tit. 1. [...]i [...], if any man is vnreprehensible, the husbande of one wife. Therefore a Bishoppe, Elder, or Deacon, may be he, that hath a wife, presently, and not he that hath had one which is dead, onely. Moreouer I learne by conference of that place, 1. Tim. 5. that Polygamie, which is many wiues at one time, is forbidden a Bi­shop, and not second mariage, as it hathben commonly and of olde time taken of many: seeing there is no reason to exclude a poore widow from almes and office in the Church, that hath liued continently with more husbands then one, so that she haue kept her to one at one time: But it is not meete, that she should be elec­ted to an office in the Church, which hath bene an a­dulteresse, or vnlawfully diuorced from her husband, [Page 185] hath maried an other, although she may be releeued by almes, if she be penitent.

But Bristowe would haue men to marke it well, that yet neuer from the Apostles time, to this day, any one Bishoppe or Prieste, that is confessed to haue beene a good one, did marrie afterwardes, no not Io­uinian him selfe. Hee would faine if he durst, say that no Bishoppe or Priest had a wife: but that were easily refelled out of Eusebius and all auncient histo­ries. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. sheweth that the A­postles Peter and Philip, had wiues and did beget chil­dren. Also he saith of Saint Paule, ‘ Vnius quoque vxoris virum utique admittit, seu hoc Presbyter, seu Diaconus, seu Laicus viens matrimonio citra reprehensionem. He alloweth the husband of one wife, whether he be Elder, or Dea­con, or lay man, vsing matrimony without reprehensi­on.’ Seeing therefore he putteth no difference in respect of matrimony, betweene a Laye man, and a Cleargie man, it is plaine, that it was as lawfull for Elders and Deacons to marrie in his time, as for Lay men. Againe the same Clemens saith against them that denyed the lawfulnesse of generation, after he had cited diuerse textes of Scripture. ‘ Quid autem ad haec dicunt, qui in legem, &c. But what say they to these thinges, which inueygh against the lawe, and against matrimony, as that it was graunted onely in the law, & not also in the new Testa­ment? What can they say to these lawes that are made, which abhorre sowing and generation, when he maketh a Bishop also, him that ruleth his house wel, guide of the Church? And the marriage of one woman buildeth the house of our Lorde.’ Therefore he saith, that all thinges are cleane to the cleane. Seeing therefore that marriage is as free by his iudgement by the new Testament, as by the lawe, and Aarons Priestes, were at libertie to marrie, no man neede to doubt, but the Bishops and Elders of the Churche of Christe, are at as great libertie, and v­sing their libertie in his time, were allowed for good ones.

[Page 186] Long after his time, the councell of Gangra in their Epistle to the Bishops of Armenia complaine of Eusta­chius and his sect, saying, ‘ Presbyteros verò, qui matrimonis contraxerunt, sperni debere dicunt. They saie that Elders or Priests which haue ioyned them selues in matrimo­ny, ought to be despised.’ Therefore these catholique Bishops thought those Priests good ones, which did ioyne them selues in matrimony, & so they made their Canon: ‘ Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum, &c. If any man make difference of a married Priest, as though by occasion of his marriage, he ought not to offer, and doth therfore absteine from his oblation, let him be ac­cursed.’ Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane councell decreeth Cap. 10. ‘ Diaconi quicunque, &c. Whosoeuer be ordeyned Deacons, if at the same time when they were ordeined, they protested, saying that they would be ioy­ned in marriage, because they could not so continue, if afterwarde they haue married wiues, let them remaine in the ministerie, because the Bishop hath giuen them licence: But so many as haue helde their peace, and ta­ken imposition of handes professing continencie, and af­terwarde be ioyned in marriage, ought to ceasse from the ministerie.’

Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist, 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo: lib 4. allowing the tra­dition of the orientall Churches for marriage of theyr Church ministers. ‘ Aliter se Orientalium, &c. The tradi­tion of the Easterne Churches hath it otherwise, and o­therwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome. For the Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons of their Chur­ches, are coupled in marriage: but none of the Priestes of this Church, from the Subdeacon vnto the Bishoppe hath licence to enter into mariage.’ It were hard if there were neuer a good one among all the Cleargie of the East Churches, since the Apostles time, which haue ben married and yet are.

To conclude, I trust it is apparant to the indifferent reader, that such texts of Scripture as I alledged in those [Page 187] two bookes, which Bristow vndertaketh in this confuse manner to confute, were rightly applyed, and without all violence or wresting, doe proue sufficiently that for which they were called to witnesse. And as for the po­pish conference of Scriptures, wherof Bristowe once a­gaine with great lothsomnesse doeth bragge, how sound it is, you may perceiue by this example, & taste, giuen by him in this Chapter. Wherefore I maruell much what learned ministers of our church these were, whom Bristow affirmeth (being in number more then a dozen, and diuerse of no vulgar wittes) by their onely hearing of your conference of scriptures to haue become papists. By like some vagabonde, irregular, and vnhonest per­sons, being depriued of their ministerie for their vn­godly behauiour, haue sought fauour among them by reuolting, or at least counterfaiting to be reuolted to papistrie, when they be of no religion, commended by Bristow for their wittes, but neither for their honestie nor learning.

2 About onely faith. Bristo.

I quoted Ambrose, Origen, and Cyprian, for iustification by faith only. To this Bristowe answereth Fulke. first generally, that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they meane a man may be iustified by faith, although before he was a Christian Catholike, he did no good works. But he cannot so escape, for they speake not only of the first conuersion, of a man, but of iustification vnto saluation of euerie faithfull man, according to the example of Abraham and Dauid, who both had good workes, yet were not iustified by them before God, but by theyr faith only. And Saint Paule expressely saith of himselfe, and all other Christians that were in his time, & that shalbe in all times, that the example of Abra­hams iustification is the example of his and their iusti­fication: Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and it is not written for him onely, that it is imputed to him, but also for vs, vnto whō it shalbe imputed, which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus from the dead, who was deliuered for our sinnes, and raysed againe for our iustification. I wish that Bri­stow in the next conference that he maketh, after the reading hereof, would marke this text with the circum­stances of the persons of whom it is spoken, & of y ^e temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh, that faith shalbe im­puted for righteousnes. In the meane time, I must proue that these fathers speake generally of all Christians and the only way of iustification, and not of newe conuerts only, and of the instinct of their baptisme or newe con­uersion onely, but that they are iustified by faith vnto eternall saluation.

[Page 206] First Origen, after he had brought the example of the theefe iustified by faith only, bringeth in the exam­ple of the sinnfull woman. Luk. 7. ‘ Ex nullo legis opere, sed pro sola fide ait ad eam, remit [...]ur tibi peccata tua: & iterū, fides tua saluam te fecit, &c. For no worke of the lawe, but for faith only, he saith vnto her, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee: And againe, thy faith hath saued the, goe in peace, But also in many places of the Gospell we reade, that our Sauiour vsed this speache, that he saith, the faith of the beleeuer, is the cause of his saluation. By all which it is cleare, that the Apostle iudgeth, rightly that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe.’ See you not that iustification is not only to sett a man in free will, discharged of his sinnes committed before baptisme, but continueth with him vnto saluation? Al­so where I saide that Origen answereth this obiection, which the Papists make against vs, for teaching iustifi­cation by faith only, (though Bristowe say it is false) it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis, &c. but peraduenture some body hearing this, may become idle and negligent in doing good workes, if only faith suf­fice to iustification. Is not this one of the Papists obiec­tions? Againe that this doctrine of iustification pertei­neth only to them y ^t are newly conuerted to Christiani­ty, against which Origen sheweth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himselfe that he was righteous, and boasting thereof. Luk 18. that it perteyneth to all men, that boasting may be excluded, and that none boast in any thing, but in the crosse of Christ, ‘ Vides Apostol [...] non gloriantem, &c. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousnes, nor of his chastity, nor of his wis­dome, nor of his other vertues and acts, but most mani­festly pronouncing and saying, let him that gloryeth glory in the Lorde, &c.’ and so at length sheweth, that all this doth verifie the saying of the Apostle, we iudge that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the law, which before he had interpreted by faith only, whether they haue no works going before as the theefe, [Page 207] the sinfull woman, or whether they haue workes of the lawe without the faith of Christe, as the Pharisee, or whether they haue neuer so many workes and vertues with the faith of Christe, as the Apostle Paule, there is but one way of iustification, for all men, which is by re­mission of sinnes, through faith onely. Where Cyprian saith: that faith onely profiteth Ad Quirin. Cap. 42. Bri­stowe saith, he meaneth that faith profiteth, and without faith nothing profiteth. I confesse in deede he mea­neth all that Bristowe saith, and more too, namely that faith profiteth, therefore workes do not profite vnto iu­stification, as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth, to proue his saying: Abraham belee­ued God, and it was imputed to him for iustice. Gen. 15. By which Saint Paule proueth, that Abraham was iustified by faith without workes, and yet Abraham was not voyde of good workes. Out of the Booke De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying: That he beleeueth not in God at all, which placeth not the trust of all his felici­ty in him only. To this Bristowe answereth without shame, that the Booke De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition, coyned by Erasmus: as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an vtter enemy to all forgery and supposition, would himselfe counterfet a booke vnder the name of Cyprian. But Bristowe dou­bting, least he may be conuicted by auncient copies of this booke, remaining in Libraries, as no doubt, but that he may, for a second aunswer saith, That this sentence is of it selfe Catholike inough. For to trust Gods giftes, as in the Catholike faith, and good workes that he worketh in vs, also to trust in Saints: to trust in these, I say, as they be his, is to trust in him onely.

I say, (sayeth Bristowe,) what neede we further witnesse or reason? But Christe telling a parable, against them that trusted in themselues, that they were righteous, telleth of a Pharisee, that trusted in his woorkes, as they were the giftes of GOD, to whome hee gaue thankes for them. Luke. 18. [Page 208] This auctority of Bristowe is inough to discharge Pe­lagius, Celestinus, and all the rable of freewill men, who trusted in nothing, but that was the gift of God, and so acknowledged by them, in so much as they con­fessed, that a man was iustified by the grace of God, when he was iustified by his owne workes, because God gaue free will, and power to worke well, also a law by keeping whereof, men might be righteous. Finally this rule of Bristowe, will iustifie a man, which putting his trust in Angels, worshippeth them as Gods Angells, yea which putting his trust in any of Gods creatures, trusteth in him alone. So that nothing is so singular, but he can make it generall, nor any thing so generall, but he can restrayne it at his pleasure.

Now y ^t Ambrose also extendeth the grace of iustifica­tion by faith only vnto eternal saluation, it is manifest as generally throughout his commentarie vppon the Epistle to the Romanes, so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. vpon these wordes of the Apostle, I thank my God al­waies for you, for the grace of God which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesu. ‘ Datam dicit, &c. He saith this grace which hath bene giuen you in Christ Iesus, which grace is so giuen in Christ Iesus, because this is decre­ed of God that he which beleueth in Christ, should be saued, without workes, obtaining freely remission of sinnes, by faith only.’ Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicati­one, &c. that from the preaching of Iohn, the lawe doth cease, that only faith may suffice vnto saluation, which is an abridgment of the law. Likewise ‘ Exhortatione ad virgines: Videtis mysteria, &c. you see the mysteries, you see the grace of Christ, the grace of the holy Ghost, which is deliuered as it were by a certaine lot, because not of workes, but of faith, euery one is iustified of the Lorde. For as the falling out of the lott, is not in our power, but is such, as chaunce hath brought, so the grace of our Lorde, is not as it were of the merite of hire, but is deliuered, as of his will.’ This writeth Ambrose of al that are partakers of the grace of God, and not of them that are newly baptised or conuerted only. A­gaine [Page 209] in the same Booke, he saith, speaking of all men that attaine to saluation, ‘ Hîc quidem luctamur, sed alibi coronamur, &c. here truly we do wrestle, but in an other place we are crowned.’ I haue spoken not of my selfe on­ly, but of all men generally. For whence should I haue so much merite, to whom pardon is in steed of a crown? What can be said more plainly, to exclude the merite of good workes from iustification? whereas the reward of good workes that is freely giuen to the iustified man by faith only, both Ambrose and we doe neuerthelesse ac­knowledge.

3. About Purgatorye. Touching Scriptures expounded a­gainst Bristowe. it.

He sayeth I am taken in a vaine bragge, because Fulke. I beeing vrged by Allen, to bring any Scripture ex­pounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead, I bring only Hierom, referring the reader to other places of Cyprian, and Origen, and other cited in di­uerse places of my booke. These places he saith, are but bare names. But when we come to expounding of these places, we shall finde, eyther reason or auctority of these Doctors for vs. In the meane time, we will consider Hieronyme, whom Bristowe saith, that I confesse to haue allowed prayers for the deade: Wherein he saith vntruly, for I neuer confessed simply, that he allowed prayers for the deade: But Pur. 194. I saide interroga­tiuely and by waie of concession, Howe hapeneth it y ^t Chrysostome and Hieronyme, which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed prayer for the deade? And indeede in so many bookes of Hieronyme nothing can be found whereby it may be proued, that he allowed prayer for the deade, although it were a common error of many in his time. And in this place cited in the decrees by Gra­tia [...]. 139. 2. he simply denieth that any prayers are pro­fitable for the deade.

The place in deede as (Bristowe saith) is in his Com­ment. [Page 210] vpon Gal. 6. although he in exposition allude to 2. Cor. 5. we must all appeare before the iudgment seate of Christe. But the answere of this place of Hierome, Bristowe saith, I might learne of the glose, which ex­poundeth it of them that die without repentaunce on­ly, but in deede it is spoken generally of all men. As the very wordes declare vpon this texte, Euery one shall beare his owne burthen. ‘ Videtur superioribus contrair [...], vbi ait, &c. He seemeth to goe against the former sen­tence, where he sayth: Beare the burthens one of an o­ther: For if euerie one shall beare his owne burthen, one cannot beare the burthens of an other. But we must consider that there he commanded, that we which cōmit sinne, should in this life helpe one an other, and in this present worlde should be an aide one to an other: but here hee speaketh of the iudgment of the Lorde vpon vs: that not of other mens sinn, or of comparison of the worser, but according to our own worke, we shalbe iud­ged of him, either sinners or holy, euery one receiuing according to his owne worke. Obscurè licet doce [...]r per han [...] sententiolam, nouum dogma quod latitat: We are taught by this short sentence though darkely, a newe doctrine, or opinion whiche lyeth hidde: that while we are in this present worlde, we may helpe one another, either by prayers or by counsels: but when we shall come be­fore the iudgement seate of Christe, that neither Iob, nor Dauid nor Noe can intreate for any man, but that euerie one doth beare his owne burthen.’ That which Hierome speaketh of himselfe, and of all other, that prayers can not auaile them, beeing out of this world, when the glose restreyneth onely to them that die in mortall sinne, without repentance, it is as good as the olde iest, Statuimus, id est abrogamus. It is also worthy to be considered that Hierome as it seemeth against the er­rour of his time, calleth this a newe doctrine which he gathereth of that sentence.

That the moste auncient doctours doe not interprete the Scriptures by name against Purgatorie, I said it was because Purgatorie in their time was neither heard nor [Page 201] named. Bristowe replyeth, that I confessed Cap. 3. that the olde doctours heard both the name and the thing, &c. Thus he chargeth me still with confessions falsely. For although Augustine heard of the name of Purgato­rie, whereof he sometimes doubteth, sometimes denyeth all places but two, yet no writer before him. Neither were prayers for the dead heard in the Churche, before the heresie of Montanus. But to returne to Hierome, whom I saide in Eccle. 11. to expound the North and South, not for the states of grace and wrath, but for the places of rewarde or punishment: Bristowe sayeth of both. But I denie that he speaketh of the state of grace, in that sort that Allen meaneth: namely, that any man so dieth in the state of grace, that he obteineth release of punishment after this life, which is the matter in question, but that Bristowe is disposed to cauill. For although a man in this life, may be remoued out of the North into the South, yet when the tree is fallen, there is no more remouing by Hieroms iudgement. ‘Where­soeuer thou preparest thee a place, and a seate hereafter, whether it be in the South, or in the North, there when thou art dead, thou shalt continue.’ This whiche the Doctor speaketh expressely of a place, a seate of euerla­sting continuance, Bristow for want of a better answere, expoundeth of merite, as though it might stande with Hieronyms authoritie, that the place might be chan­ged although the merite can not be bettered.

Touching scriptures for Purgatorie and prayer for the dead, whether the Doctours say, No Scripture to make for it. Bristow [...].

I said that Tertullian confesseth, y ^t oblations & pray­ers for the dead were not taken of the scriptures but of tradition. Bristow in diuers places denieth any such con­fession of Tertullian, restraining his meaning to an onely ceremonie of oblation and prayers on the yeares day of their departure: as though oblation and prayer for y ^e dead generally, were clearly taught in y ^e scriptures, [Page 212] which thing if it be: why doth not Allen or Bristowe, or any writer yong or olde, bring one place out of the canonicall Scriptures, allowing prayer and oblation for the deade? and as touching Tertullian, his wordes are such, as with no equity may be restrained to so particu­lar a ceremonie: ‘ Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, an­nua die facimu [...]. We make oblations for the deade, for the day of mens byrth on the yearly daie. If Oblationes pr [...] natalitiis, be not founde in the Scriptures at all, neither on the yearly daie, nor any other daie, Why saie we not the like of Oblationes pro desunctis? Againe, why maie it not be, that the yearly day of celebration is meant only of mens byrth, and oblations for the deade left at larg [...] for to celebrate the yearly festiuity of mens birth, was v­sual among the Gentiles, euery man for himselfe. But to obserue the yearely day of al mens death were infinite, either for their friends or for the Priests to doe.’ Where­fore it remaineth, that oblations for the dead, what so­euer they were in Tertullians time, were not taken of the Scriptures. And if they were Masse and prayers for the dead, as the Papistes say, Masse and prayers for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures by Tertullians confession.

The contradictions that he layeth to me, I alwayes reserue to their peculiar Chapter. Augustine also denyeth a third place to be found in the Scriptures, D [...] Verb. Apost. ser. 14. Contra Pelagian. Hyp. lib. 5. And De Verb. Apostol. Ser. 33 For praying for the dead, he alledgeth the tradition of the fathers, which he is not wont to doe, where scripture doth not faile him. Epiphanius like­wise against Aerius bringeth no Scripture, but the cu­stome and tradition of the Churche in naming the dead in their prayers. And which of the olde writers except Chrysostome, once goeth about to alledge Scripture for prayer for the dead? Wherefore I made no vaine bragge in saying most of the olde writers, that defende such prayers, confessed they had them not of the Scrip­tures.

Of certaine particular textes. Bristowe.

I saide that Saint Augustine is cleare, that the text (1. Fulke. Cor. 3. of him that shalbe saued through fire) proueth not Purgatorie, affirming, that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life. Bristowe cauilling, that he af­firmeth not, but speaketh doubtfully, &c. saith that he onely sheweth it ought not to be expounded, after the heresie of the Origenistes of hell fire. But Augustines wordes are plaine: ‘ Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apo­ [...]tolus, talis debet intelligi, vt ambo per eum transeant, &c. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh, ought to be vnderstoode such, that both may passe tho­rough it, that is, both he that buildeth vpon this founda­tion, Golde, Siluer, pretious stones, and he also which buildeth Woode, Strawe, Stubble. For when he had saide this, he added: The fire shal trie euerie mans work, such as it is, if any mans worke remaine, that which he hath builded vpon, he shall receiue rewarde: But if any mans worke be burned, he shall suffer losse, but he him­selfe shalbe saued, yet so as it were through fire. The fire truely, is the tentation of tribulation, of which it is ma­nifestly written in an other place, The fornace pro­ueth the potters vessels, and tentation of tribulation, iust men. This fire in this present life, worketh that which the Apostle saith, &c.’ By this you see that fire in­terpreted of tribulation in this life, & denied to be spo­ken of Purgatorie fire, thorough whiche by their owne consent all men do not passe. Againe he speaketh not at all, against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire, that it shall haue an end, but against such as in his time did holde, That they which forsake not the name of Christ, and are baptised with his lauer in the Church, and are not cut off from it by any schisme or heresie, although they liue in neuer so great wickednes, which they nei­ther wash away by repenting, nor redeemed with almes, but continue most stubburnely in them vnto the end of this life, shalbe saued through fire, although they be pu­nished according to the greatenesse of their sinnes and [Page 214] wickednesse with long, but yet not eternal fire. ‘But they which beleeue this, & yet are catholikes, seeme to me to be deceiued by a certeine humane beneuolence. For the holy scripture being consulted, answereth another thing &c. Enc. ad Laurentium. C. 67.’ Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire, through which some should passe & not all, therfore against the popishe purgatorie, although he denye not but such a thing may be, yet it cannot be proued by this place, nor by any other place of scripture, as hereafter we shall see more at large in y ^e 3. diuision of this chapter, where Bristowe promiseth I wot not what, to shewe of Augustines iudgement for Purgatorie. I answered Allen, apposing vs, where we had that new meaning of our sauiours wordes, that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliati­on while he is in the way, is cast into hell, from whence he shal neuer come, I alledged for that sense Chryso­stome, Augustine, Hierom, & Chromatius. This is pas­sing childish (saith Bristow:) For D. Allen demaundeth no such thing. But this in deede is passing impudence: for Allens words in the same diuision (after he hath po­sed Caluin, Flaccus, Luther, Iewel, about their interpre­tation of scriptures, are these: But I will not make a recko­ning of their vnseemely gloses, I would their followers would on­ly but aske them in all matters, from whence they had such newe meanings which they falsely father on Gods word. Nowe the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the ti­tle, is of that place, Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow, it is not true, that all those doctors haue that sense, which I affirme them to haue. But he only saith it, let their wor­des be read, Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all inter­pretations of the place, 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirme no error: I sayde he may by the same reason allowe contradictories to be true. As in that saying, Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out, vntill he haue payde the vttermost farthing, some haue expounded, that he shall alwayes be punished: some, that hee shall not be al­wayes punished. Howe is it possible that both these in­terpretations can be true? Mary (sayth Bristow, with [Page 215] as fine Rhetorike, as strong Logike:) Thus it is true, those he and he, are not one he: but he that shalbe alwayes punished, is he, that to the end of the way, that is this life, agreeth not with his aduersarie, whome he hath deadly iniuryed, as saying to him, fatue, and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis, which i [...] the prison of the damned. He that shal not be alwayes punished, is he whose iniury was but veniall, as Racha. And so both inter­pretations agree well, not onely together, but also with the text it selfe. In deede, this is a fine distinction of he and he: but that hee which agreeth not with his aduersarie in the way, shalbe cast into prison, from whence he shall neuer come, whatsoeuer the matter were betwixt them, there is but one prison, from whence there is no deliuerance, vntil the last farthing be payde, which by those doctors exposition, is neuer payde. Whether the iniurie be grea­ter or lesser, the punishment is eternall, without recon­ciliation, or as Saint Luke sayeth, diligence to be recon­ciled. If thou being readie to offer thy gifte at the al­tar, doest remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee, goe and reconcile thy selfe, sayeth Christe, and agree quickly with him while thou art in the waye. Marke that hee speaketh of all iniurie euen offered by anger, or saying Racha, and not onely of saying Fatue. But as for, that he, which agreeth with his aduersary while he is in the way, what trespasse soeuer hee hath done him, he is not at all committed to prison, were his iniurie great or small. So that which He soeuer com­meth into prison, there is no waye of escape, vntill hee haue payde the vttermost farthing, which debt is al­wayes in paying and neuer discharged.

Secondly, whether the doctors giue any other kinde of testi­monie Bristowe. against vs.

First, about the booke of Machabees.

Where I sayde, that Allen pretendeth to proue the Fulke. booke of Machabees by authoritie of the church, when hee cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD: Bristowe replyeth, as though [Page 216] all bookes are canonicall which haue consent with the Scriptures. Fulk reioyneth, that hee vnderstandeth not his argument so, but that which hath not consent with other canonicall bookes, is not canonicall.

Where I take exception, to the Councel of Carthage, which numbreth this booke among the canonical scri­ptures, as a Councell prouinciall: Bristowe sayth, it was by my confession confirmed in the sixt generall Coun­cell of Constantinople in Trullo, therfore it hath y ^e au­thoritie of the whole true church. But I tooke no excep­tion to the generalitie therof. But let it be as generall as you will, both that and the Councel in Trullo erred by your owne iudgement, seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authoritie of the Romane prelate, euen by name, as Gratian witnesseth, Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretike Art. 16. & 17. Beside this, I alledge, that this Councel of Carthage 3. among Canonicall Scriptures, nameth fiue bookes of Salomon, whereas the church alloweth but three. Bristowe answereth out of Augustine (which hee saith was one of the Councell) that the booke of wise­dome and Ecclesiasticus, of a certeine similitude, were called Salomons bookes, whereas they were written by Iesus the sonn of Syrach, although the former he retract in rest. li. 2. Ca. 4. I aske no better to proue the errour of the Councell, but that they named fiue of Salomon for three. Secondly, it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Councell, y ^t although they called these books canonical, yet they meant them not to be of equall au­thoritie with the rest of the scriptures, ‘ Aug. cōtra Gaudent. lib. 2. Ca. 23. And this scripture of the Machabees, y ^e Iewes count not as the Lawe & the Prophets & the Psalmes, to whome our Lord giueth testimonie as to his witnesses, saying, it behoueth that all things should be fulfilled y ^t are writtē of me in y ^e law & in y ^t Prophets & in y ^e Psalms. But it is receiued of the church not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read & heard.’ Bristowe saith I ascribe vnto S. Augustine. y ^t which he reporteth of the Iewes, when I say that he alloweth them not in full authoritie w ^t the law, [Page 217] the Prophets & the Psalmes: fraudulently omitting, that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentēce that our Sauiour Christ appealeth to these onely wit­nesses, namely the law, the Prophets & the Psalmes, & so the Iewes by ancient tradition, diuide all the canonical bookes into these three orders. Secondly, where I note y ^t Augustine alloweth not these bookes w ^tout condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer: Brist. saith, that all Ca­tholikes & S. Peter do require y ^e same condition in y ^e rea­der of the whole scriptures, as S. Augustine doth in the Donatistes, which defended the murthering of thēselues by example of Rasis out of the Machabees. Wherunto I reply, y ^t although sobrietie be required in al readers of y ^e holy scripture, & other writings also: yet it is not requi­red, as a condition making y ^e scriptures to be profitably receiued of y ^e church, if they be soberly read: for how­soeuer y ^e canonicall scriptures be read, & by whomsoe­uer, although he be mad & drunk y ^t readeth or heareth them, yet are they not only profitably, but also necessa­rily receiued of the church, but this scripture of y ^e Ma­chabes (saith Augustin) it is receiued not vnprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. Who seeth not a gret diffe­rence between this scripture receiued vnder condition, & the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him selfe? But Augustine (saith Brist.) & the Councel, call these ca­nonical, de doct. Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine na­meth al that by any church are counted canonical, con­fessing in a maner as Bristow granteth, that they were not all generally receiued of the whole church, & ther­fore instructeth y ^e studēt of diuinitie to prefer some be­fore others. The reasons that I brought to proue this booke, not to be canonical, are these, first because y ^e au­thor cōmendeth Rasis for killing himself, which is con­trary to Gods commaundment. Bristow answereth out of Augustine, y ^t the scripture hath only told it, & not cō ­mended it. But the place is manifest, 2. Mach. 14. that the author of y ^e booke doth not only report his murthering of him self, but also doth highly cōmend his manfulnes therin, willing (saith he) rather to dye valiantly, than to [Page 218] giue him selfe into the hands of wicked men, & to suffer reproch vnworthie for his noble stock, & so forth to the ende of the Chapter. Secondly, I said, that writer a­bridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason: but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other mens writings. Bri­stowe sayth, the booke of Kings in many places abrid­geth stories, telling where they be written in other bookes that are not canonicall. To this I answere: the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spi­rite of man, but for ciuile affaires, sendeth the reader to other writers, seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them. Furthermore he sayeth, S. Marke is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthewe, I aunswere, not so cōmonly, as falsly, for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Mathewe, and something he vtterly o­mitteth, which is not the office of a true abridger. And albeit y ^t he did, it were no answere to mine obiection, y ^t because the spirite of God telleth shortly, that which he himself had told at large, as in the Actes, the sermons of the Apostles, he is an abridger of Chronicles written by prophane men. The citing of the saying of Poets, Act. 17. & Tit. 1. proueth not that the holy ghost intending to write an historie of the church, vseth the labour of y ^e prophane man Iason the Cyrenian. I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their owne receiued witnesses, another thing to bring fiue bookes of an historie into one. Thirdly I sayd, the author of that booke confesseth, that he toke that mat­ter in hand, that men might haue pleasure in it, which could not away with the long tedious stories of Iason. But the spirit of God serueth not such vaine delightes of men. Brist. asketh, if profitable breuitie be a vaine de­light? but I speake not of the breuitie, but the cause why he affected breuitie, namely, that men might haue plea­sure in his worke. Fourthly, I said, the author sheweth what labor & sweat it was to him to make this abridge­ment, ambitiously cōmendeth his trauell, & sheweth the difference between a storie at large, & an abridgement, all which things sauour nothing of Gods spirit. Also he [Page 219] confesseth his infirmitie, and desireth pardon if he haue spoken slenderly and barely, whereby hee testifieth suf­ficiently, y ^t he was no scribe of y ^e holy ghost. Bristow saith (that he ambitiously commendeth his trauel) is but my blasphemy, all y ^e rest standeth well ynough with the assi­stance of y ^e holy ghost. Concerning his ambitious cōmen­dation of his trauel, where to serueth his great cōplaint of y ^e great labour, sweat, & watching y ^e it cost him? & the wise similitude y ^t he taketh of him that maketh a feast, & seeketh other mens commoditie, & hath no smal sauor: ‘so we also for many mens sake (saith he) are very well content to vndertake this great labour. A great labour I promise you, and to great profite of many.’ Likewise in the ende, a passing good similitude of wine, to fi­nishe his booke which hee beganne with a feast. ‘As it is hurtfull to drinke wine alone, and then againe wa­ter; and as wine tempered with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: so the setting out of the matter deli­teth the eares of them that reade the storie.’ But to the rest, Bristowe asketh, if the scribes of the holy ghost, must bee alwayes eloquent, or able to doe all without sweat or labour? I aunswere, as vaine eloquence is not profitable for them, so they neuer complain for the lack of it, but spirituall vtterance they haue abundantly, and that without sweat and watching, whē they write as the spirite of God doth moue them. Neither doth S. Paul confesse, y ^t he lacketh vtterance, when he said he was rude in speaking: 2. Cor. 11. but rehersed what the false Apo­stles did obiect against him, for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in diuine eloquence, y ^t he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercurie. Act. 14. Neither doth hee excuse his boldnes writing to the Romans, as Bristowe saith blasphemously, but sheweth that he was bold, vpō his office, because he was y ^e minister of Christ vnto the gentils. Ro. 15 That he vsed y ^e hand of Tertius in writing y ^t Epistle, or any other, it was not to auoid y ^e labor of endi ting: Finally, y ^t he vsed intollerable paines in preaching, It proueth not, y ^t it cost him great labor, & trauel in stu­dying, what to write or preach either, which y ^e spirit of [Page 220] God did minister vnto him plentifully: But neuer doth he craue pardon, as one vncerteine whether he haue don well or no, as the writer of the Machabees doth, confes­sing in the end that he hath done as wel as he could, and in the beginning, leauing to the author y ^e exact diligēce of euery particular, so submitting his labour as infe­rior in perfection to the worke of Iason the Cyrenian. That I speake not of so many falshods and fables as hee affirmeth for truth, which are refelled both by the for­mer book of Machabees and by Iosephus.

Where Allen alleged y ^e authority of Ierom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted therby, for in S. Ieroms works none such is found: now commeth Bri­stow, & telleth me it is in a preface before the booke of Machabees, in y ^e vulgar latine Bybles, taken out of y ^e sēse of Ierom, as diuers of those prefaces be, and that wil ap­peare by these two places, which I cite out o [...] him to proue y ^t booke not canonicall: The former is in his pre­face vpon y ^e book of kings, where rehersing y ^e names of the canonical books, he omitteth this, and after saith ex­presly it is not in the Canon. Bristow aunswereth, it is not in the Canon of the Hebrewes. As though the church of God, since Christ shoulde haue more bookes of the olde testament in y ^e canon, then y ^e church of the Hebrews had. Ierom saith y ^t this preface of his, may be set before al the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin, ‘ v [...] scire valeamus, quicquid extrahos est, inter Apocripha esse po­nendū. That we may be able to know y ^t whatsoeuer is be­side these, is to be placed among y ^e apocriphall writings.’ So y ^t Ierom speaketh expresly, y ^t not onely among the Iewes, but among Christians also these & al other books without y ^e canon, are to be taken for apocriphall.

The other place of Ierom is in his preface vppon the prouerbs, that they were neither in the Churches canon. ‘Therefore euen as the church readeth in deede y ^e bookes of Iudeth, Tobias & Machabees, but yet receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures: so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia, she may reade to the edifying of the people, but not to confirme the authori­tie [Page 221] of the churches doctrin:’ To wit (saith Bristow) against the Iewes, as though y ^e Churches doctrin, is not to be cō ­firmed against heretikes, and euen to y ^e Catholiks them­selues, by authoritie of the canonicall scriptures.

That Augustine accounteth these bookes canonicall, after a sort, it was of me confessed, and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristow bringeth, de praed. sanct. & de ciuit. Dei lib. 18. cap. 36.

But Ierom is also cited in his preface vpon y ^e booke of Iudith to affirme the booke of Iudith to be canonicall by the councell of Nice: if that were so, what pertaineth it to the book of Machabees? But in deede it is not so: for though we shoulde doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Iudith, the words are these: ‘With y ^e Hebrewes the booke of Iudith is redde among y ^e hagiographaor books called holy writings, whose authoritie to streng­then those things y ^t come in controuersie, is iudged lesse conuenient: yet being written in the Chaldee tongue, it is counted among the stories. But because the Synod of Nice is redde to haue accounted it in the number of ho­ly scriptures, I haue yelded to your request, &c.’

First he saith it was reade of the Hebrewes among the Hagiographa, which is false, as Hierom affirmeth Pro­log. Gal. in lib. reg. Secondly, as Erasmus hath noted, he affirmeth not, that this booke was allowed by the Nicē councell, but saith it is read to haue accounted perhaps in some such writer, as coyned the canon sent vnto the Aphrican councell. Thirdly, if we shall vnderstand Ha­giographa heere as Bristowe woulde haue them, not for those nine that be canonicall, but others that be Apocri­phal, & yet holy writings, why shoulde we not likewise say, y ^t the computatiō of y ^e Nicen councel, was to receiue it among such Apocriphall holy writings, and not a­mong y ^e canonical scriptures of irrefragable authoritie? And therfore Fulke is euen where he was before, in say­ing y ^t Ierom doth simply refuse y ^e books of y ^e Machabees, & saith y ^e church receiueth thē not for canonicall, & euen that which Bristow saith, I should haue shewed, that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receiue [Page 222] them, ‘that we might be able to know (saith he) speaking I dare say of himselfe & all other members of y ^e Church, that whatsoeuer books are without y ^e Canō of y ^e Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocriphal:’ where I saide that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint Iames, but Eusebiu: before them, saith plainly it is a counterfait, protesting that I speake it not to excuse them y ^t doubt of it, Bristo [...] is not content, except I woulde condemne thē for here­tikes, which afterwarde reuersed their error, especially Luther. Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius, in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeite, when he saith the cleane contrary, and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius, I know not out of whose translation But y ^e words of Eusebius are [...]: It must bee knowne that it is a bastard or counterfeit.

2 About onely scripture. Bristowe.

I said Cyprian would haue nothing done in the cele­bration Fulke. of y ^e lords supper, & namely in ministring of the cup, but that Christ himselfe did. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow an­swereth y ^e he writeth against y ^e Aquarians which offered water only, wher as Christ offered wine, which was clean against Christs doing. And what is your sacriledge, in robbing of y ^e church of Christ of the whole cup? is it not cleane contrary, both to his doing & his cōmaundemēt, drinke ye al of this, and such doing as he did for a tradi­tion vnto vs, when y ^e Apostle rehersing y ^t tradition reher­seth drinking of the Lords cup by y ^e lay, as well as eating of y ^e bread? As for mingling wine with water, which first was but a custome of sobriety, after grew into a ceremo­nie, if Cyprian should vrge of necessitie, he might be an­swered by his owne rule.

Likewise where Chrysostom saith, it was decreed by the Apostles y ^t in the celebration of the holy misteries, a remembrance should be made of them y ^t are departed, I said we wil be bold to charge him w ^t his owne sayings: first Hom de Adam & He [...]a: satis sufficere, &c. wee thinke it sufficeth ynough whatsoeuer the writings of y ^e Apostles haue taught vs according to the foresaid rule, insomuch [Page 223] that we count it not all catholike whatsoeuer shall ap­peare contrary to the rules appointed.

By this Bristow seeth, y ^t I am a great reader of the do­ctors. For whosoeuer made this homily (saith he) he took those words out of y ^e instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus, in the first tome of councels, where the wordes are not, the writings of the Apostles but the writings of y ^e see apostolike, which are thought sufficient. Whatsoeuer my reading be, for the maker of the Homily, I cannot depose, but I trust he will not de­ny, but it hath in al printed books gone vnder the name of Chrysostom, and it containeth nothing vnworthy the iudgement of Chrysostom. It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoeuer gathered that instruction, bor­rowed those words out of this homily, and from y ^e wri­tings of the Apostles peruerted them to the writings of the see apostolike, many such borrowing & peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles. For ad­mit that not Chrysostom, but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of y ^t Epistle or instruction: Why did he alter them, if hee thought the writings of the apostolike see sufficient, to approue all catholike doctrine? except perhaps his copie had also a­postolica scripta, & that copie which Peter Crab follow­ed in gathering the councels is corrupted. Certaine it is, the homily is auncient, and made in the time when the Pelagian heresie begun to spring, which was in the later time of Chrysostom, & therfore I haue vsed no fraude, or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms, wherto Bristow maketh no answere, but denyeth the au­thority. Likewise wher I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow y ^e Canon or rule of y ^e holy scripture, but permit al to their owne cogitations. Bristow answereth nothing, but y ^t Chrysost. answereth heretikes which said our Lord took not ture flesh: as though his sētēce is not general against al heretiks which go besid the scripture. Thirdly I saide, if we be further vrged, we wil allege y ^t he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy scripture, but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a theese.

[Page 224] To this Bristow replyeth, that I will call Chrysostom a theefe by his owne saying, for vsing tradition, yea ve­rely if he be obstinate: and why not as well as S. Paul, or an Angel accursed, if they bring an other Gospel? Se­condly he saith, as though he vseth not scripture, which vseth tradition, or that scripture doth not warrant tra­dition as 2. Thessa. 2. I aunswere such tradition as is war­rāted by scripture we refuse not, but if al your traditions were warrāted by scripture, wher should be your vnwrit­ten verities? Thirdly (saith Bristow) the thing y ^t he spea­keth of, is that Antichrist & Pseudochrists, cannot shewe any commission out of scripture. I answere that proueth the Pope to be Antichrist, who neither for his authoritie, nor for his doctrine, can shewe any commission out of the scripture.

Fourthly I saide, we may bee as bolde with Chryso­stome, as he saide he would be with Paul himselfe, in 2. ‘ ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somwhat more, wee must not be ruled by Paul himselfe, if he speake any thing that is his owne, and any thing that is humaine, but wee must obey the Apostle, when he caryeth Christ speaking in him.’ Bristow asketh, whether he spake onely by scrip­ture. No verily, but by reuelation he spake to S. Paul, by aud [...]ble and humaine voyce hee spake to the rest of the Apostles, and whatsoeuer hee spake any way pertaining to our instruction, is committed to writing, and there­fore I beleeue not Chrysostom, alledging a tradition of the Apostles which is not founde in their writings.

Another place of Chrysostom, I cite in Luke, Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bredde here­sies: Therefore hee woulde haue heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures. We would the same (saith Bristowe) but what maketh this for onely scripture to be of authoritie? yes forsooth. If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures, that which com­meth not through ignorance of the scriptures, is no he­resie: And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures, commeth not of ignorance of the scriptures: therefore he y ^t knoweth y ^e scriptures, knoweth all truth.

[Page 225] Vnto Leo the great alledging custome and tradition, I oppose his owne saying, for onely Scripture to be suf­ficient. ‘Ep. 10. They fall into this follie, which, when they be hindred by some obscuritie, to know the truth, haue not recourse to the wordes of the Prophets, nor to the writinges of the Apostles,’ nor to the authorities of the Gospell, but to themselues.

He doth not say (saith Bristowe) that all truethes are expressed in the Scripture. For he blameth the here­tike, for not hauing recourse to our common Creede, as though there were any thing in our common Creede, which is not expressed in the Scripture. And if onely Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscuritie, howe could they be blamed for not hauing recourse vnto them, for y ^t which they cannot find in them? The words of y ^e councel of Constantinople y ^e 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these: ‘If all men had simply, and without calliditie from the beginning receiued the Gospels preaching, and bene content with the Apostles institutions, the matters verily had beene well a fine, and neither the authors of heresies, nor the fautors of the Priestes, had bene put to the paynes of conflictes: but because the diuell not resting, ray­seth vp his squires, therefore Christe also in time con­uenient hath raised vp his warriours against them, to wit, the general councels, which to this time haue bene holden being sixe in number.’ So expressely (saith Bri­stowe) they auouch the authoritie of councels, and you alledge them for only Scriptures. I crie you mercie sir: Doe they alledge the authoritie of Councels, as though the preaching of the Gospell, and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient: when they saide before, if men would haue bene content with them, there needed no councels? But you adde, that in their wordes, there is no mention at all of Scripture, but onely of preaching and teaching. What I pray you, is the Gospel, which they should preach no scripture? are not the constitutions of the Apostles conteined in their writinges? I know you will answer they are not all con­tained [Page 226] in their writinges. At leastwise what sworde did these warriers vse against Satan, styrring vpp his squires? doth not the councell say expresly the sworde of the spirit, which is the worde of God contained in the Scriptures? for what other worde doth Saint Paule com­mend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reproue all heresies into perfection? 2. Tim. 3.

Against Basil maintaining vnwritten tradition I op­posed his owne auctority, De Ver. Fid. in Proem. Morall. We knowe y ^t we must now and alwaies auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lorde. But all is not differing, saith Bristowe, that is not expressed in the Scripture. Neither doe I say so, but all is differing that can not be proued by Scrip­ture. And so saith Basil in his short definition, to the first interrogation. ‘Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man, to doe or saie any thing which he thinketh to be good, without testimony of the holy Scrip­tures: He answereth: For as much as our sauiour Christ saith, that the holy Ghost shall not speake of himselfe, what madnes is it that any man should beleeue any thing without the auctority of Gods worde?’ Here you see, he extendeth the worde of God no farther then the holy Scriptures. Yet Bristowe saith: If I sawe the place, my malice passeth. For the wordes are these. Who can be so madde, that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of him selfe? And it followeth. But because of those things & words that are in vse amongest vs, some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted. Concerning them that are o­mitted (saith Bristowe) We haue this rule, to be subiect to o­ther men for Gods commandement renouncing quite our owne wills. In very deede I abridged the place, and gaue the true sense, because it is large. But if Bristowe vnderstand Basills language, his wordes are these: [...], &c, ‘Seeing our Lorde Iesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost, for he shall not speake of himselfe, but what things so euer he shall heare, the same shall he speake: and of him [Page 227] selfe: the sonne can doe nothing of himselfe. And a­gaine, I haue not spoken of my selfe, but the father which hath sent me, he himselfe hath giuen me a com­mandement what I shall saie and speake. And I knowe that his commandement is life eternall. Therefore the things which I speake, euen as the father hath said vnto me, so I speake. Who is come into so greate madnes, y ^t he dare of him selfe take vpon him any thing [...] euen vnto knowledge? which hath neede of the holy and good spirite as a guide that he may de directed into the waie of truth, both in minde and speache, and deede, but walketh blinde and in darknes without the sonne of righteousnes, yea our Lorde Iesus Christ, him which giueth light with his commandements as it were with beames? For the commandement of the Lorde saith he is bright, lightning the eies. Seeing then that of such things as we haue in vse, some are vnder the com mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture, & some are not spoken of concerning those that are writ­ten, no liberty at all is giuen to any man, neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden, nor to omit ought of those things which are prescribed. Seeing the Lorde hath once charged and saide: thou shalt keepe the worde which I command thee this daie: thou shalt not adde vnto it, neither shalt thou take from it. For there is a terrible expectation of iudgment and zeale of fyer, which shall deuoure all those which shalbe bolde to do any such thing. And concerning those things, which are not spoken of, the Apostle Paule hath set vs a rule say­ing: all things are lawfull for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawfull for me, but all things do not edify, Let no man seek his own profit but euery one an other mans. So that in euery matter, it is necessary to be subiect to God, according to his com­mandement. For it is written, be ye subiect one to an o­ther in the feare of Christ.’

‘And our Lord saith, he that will among you be great, let him be least of all, and seruant of all, that is to say, estraunged from his owne will, according to the [Page 228] imitation of our Lorde himselfe, which saith: I came downe from heauen, not that I should doe mine owne will, but the will of my father which hath sent me,’ Where hath Bristowe, that we should be subiect to o­ther men in such thinges, as are omitted by Scripture; therefore not my malice, but his ignorance passeth, and that willful also, although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may haue a better. An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral. defin. 26. ‘Euery word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scrip­ture for the persuasion of good men, & the confusion of wicked men.’ Bristow saith, he admonisheth his monkes being students in diuinity, to be so perfect in the Scrip­tures, y ^t they may haue a text redy, at euery need as when we bidde them, cast all away that is not written, they haue this text ready, where Saint Paule biddeth vs the contrary. To holde the traditions which we haue lear­ned, whether it be by his Scripture, or by his worde of mouth. 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paule bidde them holde such doctrine as was not to be proued out of the Scrip­tures? did hee preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians, when those to whom he preached daily, searched the Scriptures, tosee if those thinges were euen so. Act. 17. And where I pray you, did you heare any tradition by worde of Saint Paules mouth, that you may obiect it to vs? we doubt not but whatsoeuer he preached was as true, as that he did put in writing, if you can assure vs of it: but seeing that is impossible, and it is certaine he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing, Basills rule must still stande in force, that euery worde and deede must haue confirma­tion of holy scripture, or else it is not good, for all good workes are taught in the Scripture, and all true doctrine may be found in them. 1. Tim. 3.

Now commeth Bristowe, to answere such things as I obiect out of Augustine against vnwritten traditions: which he digesteth into three sorts. The first are quota­tions of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the au­tority of the canonicall Scripture, before all writinges [Page 229] of Catholike Doctours of Bishops, of Councels, before all customes and traditions.

But this Bristow denieth to be the question, but whe­ther nothing but Scripture be of authoritie: I aunswere, those places proue that nothing is of infallible veritie, but the scriptures, therfore they proue that they only are of irrefragable authoritie.

The second sorte of places are about this question, who hath the true Church. Of which question I affirme, that S. Augustine would haue the Church sought only in the Scriptures. And he [...]e he biddeth me reade his first demande, likewise I wil send him to mine answer vnto y ^e same. At length he confesseth, that Augustine is content in that question, to set aside all other authorities, to trie it by the Scriptures: But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question, that he neuer sayeth. Neither doe we say it, or refuse any authoritie, that is agreeable to the Scrip­tures. And as that one question, which was betweene S. Augustine, and the Donatistes was determinable by the onely authorititie of Scriptures, so are all questions that are betweene the Church of all times, and all heretikes.

The Donatistes helde that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world, except Affrica, as the Pa­pistes holde, that it is perished out of all partes except a peece of Europa. Saint Augustine by the Scripture proueth, the continuance in the Churche dispersed ouer all the worlde, and that we holde against the Romishe synagogue of Popish Donatistes, who haue separated them selues from the Catholike Church, into the fun­ction of an Italian Priest, as the other did of an Affrican. But Bristowe sayeth, I am as blinde as a beetle, in say­ing that the Papistes did separate themselues from our Church, seeing it is certain, that Luther did separate him selfe from the Popish Church. The like might be said to all them that forsoke the fellowship of any heretikes, to come vnto the Churche of God.

But Bristow is as madde as a marche Hare, that brag­ging so much of the title of y ^e church, he is driuen to trie it only by the Scriptures, as Augustine calleth vpon the [Page 230] Donatists. The other places which I aledge out of Aug, (saith Bristowe) are about al questions with heretikes, whatsoeuer. As that he would oppresse the Arrian Ma­ximinus with the authoritie of the Nicene councel. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristowe asketh, whether he might not presse them with the authoritie thereof, as he doth the Dona­tistes? But aske Augustine him selfe who saith, he ought not in that case, that he charged the Donatistes, which it was by their own concession, because they allowed it. But he saith in the same place, the Fathers of the Nicene councell ratified Homousion, that is, equalitie of the sonne with the father, Veritatis autoritate, & autoritatis veritate, by authoritie of trueth, and by trueth of au­thoritie. This truth of authoritie, Bristowe will haue to be the authoritie of the Nicene councell, as though the councel could not erre: but then what needed y ^e au­thoritie of trueth? In deede where the councel decreeth with the trueth, it is the trueth of authoritie, for other authoritie a Councell hath not, but of trueth: to declare trueth, and not to make trueth, for if it declare errour, as the councell of Arimine did, it hath no trueth of au­thoritie, because it hath no authoritie of trueth. Moreouer Bristow saith, I translate falsely these wordes, Nec ego huius autoritate, nec tuillius detineris. Neither am I bounden to the authoritie of the one, nor thou of the other. Whereas it should be: Neither doth the au­thoritie of the one hold me, nor of the other holde thee. There is greate difference betweene, beeing holden, and beeing bound. To the bare authoritie of the coun­cell of Nice, Maximinus was no more bounden, then Augustine to the bare authoritie of Ariminum. It was the trueth of Nice, that the Arrian was bounde vnto, and the falshod of Ariminum, that Augustine was not holden with vs. But after the example of Augustine (saith Bristowe) we will not alledge the councell of Trent, as our proper witnesses to our side, but the autho­ritie of Scriptures common to both. Witnesse hereof, Bristowes motiues, where he would ouerthrowe vs by the bare name of Catholike, and heretike, &c. Againe [Page 231] he saith, that we make challenge of 600. yeares also. And what then? Witnesses of trueth we take wheresoeuer they be, but authoritie of trueth onely out of the Scrip­tures. Where I said, that Augustine, setting all other per­suasions aside, prouoketh onely to the Scriptures, to trie the faith and doctrine of the Churche: Bristowe answereth: Howe true that is, appeareth in the same booke, De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite. For when he hath proued against the Donatistes, the Church to be his, he saith expressely, that to be inough also, for all other questions. Sufficit nobis: It is i­nough for vs that we haue that Church, which is poin­ted too, by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonicall Scriptures. De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressely, it is inough for all other questions? I must needes say expressely you lie. For the onely question, being how the Donatistes should be receiued, if they would come to the Catholike Church, as though they were the true Church, because baptisme giuen among them was not repeated in the Catholike Church, Augu­stine after much concertation saith. ‘ Quapropter cum di­catur haereticis, &c. Wherfore seeing it is said to the here­tiks: Rightousnes is wanting to you, which without cha­ritie, and the bonde of peace, no man can haue, & seeing they thēselues confesse, that many haue baptisme, which haue not righteousnesse, and if they would not confesse it, the holy Scripture conuinceth them, I maruell howe they thinke, when we wil not baptise them again, hauing not their own, but the baptisme of Christ, that we do so, as though we iudged nothing to be now wanting to thē & that because baptisme is not giuen to them in the Ca­tholike Church, which they are founde to haue already, they thinke they receiue nothing there, where they re­ceiue y ^t without which, y ^t which they haue, auaileth them to their destruction, and not to their saluation. Which if they wil not vnderstand, it is sufficient for vs, y ^t we holde y ^t Church, which is shewed forth by most manifest testi­monies of the holy and canonical Scriptures.’ Where he speaketh not of the authortie of y ^e Church to determine questions, but sheweth it is sufficiēt to haue proued by y ^e [Page 232] Scriptures, ‘that they are the true Church, although the Heretikes will not vnderstand how baptisme being mi­nistred out of the Church, hath not effect, but in the true Church,’ for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Au­gustine holdeth the true Church, that last question of theirs, how they should be receiued, though it be not resolued, yet can not disprooue them to be the true Church, nor proue the Donatists to be the Church, see­ing there can be but one.

Where out of this Booke Cap. 16. I shewe, that Au­gustine declareth, first that Heretikes must be confuted only by Scriptures, secondly that neither councells, succession of Bishoppes vniuersality, miracles, visions, dreames nor reuelations, are the notes to trie the Ca­tholike Church, but only the Scriptures: Bristowe saith, they are notes with the Scripture, as he hath shewed in his demaund, I answere whatsoeuer agreeth w ^t the Scrip­ture, may well be receiued. But the Scripture without all these is sufficient, to trie the Church as Augustine sheweth, & therefore all the rest of Bristowes motiues, might be spared, if he durst ioyne issue vpon the Scrip­ture only, as Augustine doth, but that he dare not do. He hath a great quarrell of Augustine, for translating mani­festatur is proued, as though Augustine saide, that true miracles and visions lacke waight and fashion of iust probation. If you call true miracles, that are done in­deede and not counterfeited, I say that all such make no iust probation. For God tempteth his Church by such, to see if they will forsake his commandement. Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeede, are ioyned with the truth of doctrine, which being tryed by the worde of God to be such, confirme it or prepare mens mindes vnto it, of themselues neuer sufficient to auouch true doctrine, without Gods worde: and therefore I will stil t [...]nslate, manifestatur is manifestly prooued or shewed, which is alone.

Moreouer out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam. Cap. 4. I shewed, that though consent, and vniuersality, anti­quity, succession, be good confirmation, when they are [Page 233] ioyned with truth: yet when trueth is seuered from them, it is more to be regarded then they all. Bristowe saith, that Augustine graunteth not that the truth can be separated from them. Yes verily, or else he should haue stood vpon that poynt only, that truth can not be seue­red from those markes, which vndoubtedly the Catho­lique Church had, and the Manichees wanted. And al­though he saide, the Church had most syncere wisdom, yet he saith not, that wheresoeuer was antiquity, suc­cession, &c. there must needs be the most syncere wis­dome.

Lastly out of the booke De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affir­med, that mans auctority is too weake to carry away so waighty a matter, as was in question, vsing the wordes of Augustine: Auferantur chartae humanae, &c. Let mens papers be remoued, let the voices of God be heard, shewe me one place of Scripture for Donatus side, &c. Bristowe rehearsing the saying more at large as I did, Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke? vnlesse hee thinketh he hath any vantage in his owne false transla­tion of Acta, turning it decrees. Surely whether the worde be well or ill translated, I seeke no vantage ther­of, and yet if I should change my translations, I would rather call Acta actes of the Court or recordes, then Courtrolles as you doe. But euery man may see, what vantage you clasp at, among ignorant persons, by your false translation of Chartae humanae mens Court papers, as though the worde of Augustine were not generall to remoue all mens writings, and to vrge only the Scrip­ture. But the Church beginning at Hierusalem & sprea­ding ouer all Nations, to the very last time, which Au­gustine in all places proueth against the Donatists, ma­keth much against vs in Bristowes opinion. Nay ra­ther against the Papists, which restraine the Church into the Romishe rable, which we affirme, both is and was alwaies, scattered ouer al the world, although greater in number at some times then at other some, seeing that Mahomet hath infected a greate part of the worlde, and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ [Page 234] hath his members, that neuer bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha, or to the Pope of Rome.

3 About certaine traditions. Bristowe.

The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I saide those oblations, with other superstitions Fulke. fathered vpon tradition of the Apostles, by the Nicen, & other councels, as Rhenanus witnesseth, are abrogated.

Bristowe answereth that he speaketh neuer a worde of any other traditions. Yet Bristowe confesseth him selfe, that many of them are abrogated. Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. & 5.

4 About the marriage of Votaries. Bristowe

The two places one of Epiphanius, the other of Hie­ronyme, whiche I cited for the Marriage of Votaries, Fulke. Bristo we sayeth are about a matter, which they holde euen as those fathers did. But in deede they holde the contrary, for they helde the marriage of such law­full, the Papistes dissolue them, and say they are no marriages. It is better saith Epiphanius, to haue one sinne, and not many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course, opēnly to take a wife according to the lawe, and of long time to repent from his virginitie, and so to be brought againe to the Church, as one that hath done amisse, as one that is fallen and broken & hauing neede to be bounde, rather then to be wounded daily with priuie dartes, of that wickednesse, which the deuil putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preache, these are the medicines of healing. Bristowe saith, I gather that marriage is an wholsome medicine for such men. Contrarie to that I confesse my selfe, that he cal­leth it a sinne.

But he slaundereth me as he doeth often: I saide Epi­phanius doth count it an offence to marry, because it was [Page 235] a breache of vowe, but neither he, nor I, saide that mar­ [...]i [...]ge is a sinne Bristowe saith likewise, the Apostles tra­dition calleth it a sinne. But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof euen as he did me. The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt, &c. The holy Apostles of God haue deliuered, y ^t it is a sin after virginity decre­ed, to be turned to marriage. They say not marriage is a sinne, but by breache of vowe to marrie is a sinne. For their sinn cannot pollute the ordinance of God. But the wholsome medicines are penance & reconciliation, saith Bristowe. And why not marriage I pray you? whatso­euer is good for the diseased, is an wholsom medicine: to take a wife openly, is good for the diseased: therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine. As for your di­stinction of solemne vowe, and sole vow is a very bable: Epiphanius speaketh generally of al that had vowed vir­ginity.

To the place of Hierome Ad Demetriadem, he answe­reth that they which of two sinnes will needes committ one, they counsell them to committ the lesse rather then the greater. But Hierom maketh no comparison of sinnes, but saith to such virgins as liued incontinently. ‘It must be plainly saide to them, that either they should marry if they cannot containe, or else they should con­taine if they will not marry.’

5. About the reall presence and transubstantiation. Bristowe.

About these pointes I will not stande, considering I Fulke. haue written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders, and that Bristowe bringeth nothing nor halfe so much as hath bene refelled in their books con­cerning these places.

Where I saide, it was not the beleefe of S. Aug. y ^t the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bri­stow asketh if it be his mystical body, or whether Christ haue any more bodies. It were an easy matter to shewe [Page 263] that it is called by Augustine the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church, but I pardon Bristowes ig­norance: and answere him, that the sacrament is neither his naturall, nor his mysticall body in proper speeche, But secundum quendam modum, as Aug. saith, after a certain manner, both, And I read in Theodoret of a third body, which the sacrament is, De typico symbolico (que) corpore, a ty­picall or sacramentall body.

The place of Augustine in Psalm. 58. with the cauil­lation of Adoration, which Bristowe maketh, is exa­mined in mine answere to Heskins. Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answere to Sander. Lib. 6. Cap. 2.

The place of Augustine, which I translated worde for worde, and faithfully gaue the sense thereof, as euerie man may see that readeth it, Purg. 309. Bristowe shame­fully peruerteth, setting the carte before the horse, in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense. But euen in that same booke and Chapter De Trinitate, Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is cleare, against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation, speaking of signes, & namely of the bread which is spent in receiuing of the sacrament: Sed ‘ quia haec, &c. But because these thinges are knowen to men, because they are done by men, they may haue ho­nour, as religious things, but wonder as miracles, they cannot haue.’ Whereof if he had known the carnal pre­sence, & change of the bread, such as the papistes speake of, he must needes haue acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature, which they are constrained to faine, although no man can see them, wheras al corporal miracles wroght by God are sensible

The place of Iustinus with Bristowes cauil confuted, is in mine answere to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answere. Lib. 2. Cap. 4 [...]. And Theo­doret the last Doctor that I cited, who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation (saith Bristowe) be­cause it was not clearely defined to be in fourme and matter, before the last councell of Trent, you shall finde with his cauill confuted Lib. 3. Cap. [...]2. & 56. Against San­ders booke of the sacrament. Lib. 6. Cap. 5.

6 About the sacrament of penance. Absolution. Bristowe

About the sacrament of penance, the Popish Church Fulke. saith foure thinges: first that by the Priestes absolution, the guilt of sinne and eternall paines due for it are taken away, but one houres torment in Purgatorie, as the ma­ster of the sentences teacheth, is not taken away therby, and Allen confesseth (Bristowe saith) it auaileth to take away the torments of hell. But Allen Purg. 167. requi­ring submission to Gods ministers for absolution, gi­ueth them in most ample manner a commission of exe­cuting Christes office in earth, both for pardoning and punishing of sinne: that suffering here in his Church sentence and iust iudgement for his offences, he may the rather escape our fathers greeuous chastisement in the life to come. Thus Allen is cleane contrarie to Bri­stowe, and himselfe, and left naked in this place, as al­most in all places, by Bristowe, who would seeme to take vpon him his defence.

The second thing is temporall debt, remaining after absolution. Touching this matter, I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deathes of Moses and Aaron, that they were signes of things to come, not punishments of Gods displeasure. Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bri­stowe complayneth of my synceritie, and rehearseth the wordes before. When it is said to them, that they should be gathered to their people: ‘It is manifest, that they be not in the wrath of God, which separateth from y ^e peace of the holy eternall societie. Thereby it is manifest, that also their deathes were signes of thinges to come, & not punishments of Gods indignation.’ What want of syn­ceritie is here, except there be so great difference be­tweene indignation and displeasure? But Bristowe cauil­leth of the wrath that separateth for euer, as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time. Yet the scrip­ture presseth, where God saide you shall die, because you did not beleeue me. This was no satisfaction for their temporall debt remaining after absolution, wherof the question is, [Page 238] but a fatherly correction to them, and an example vnto other. Yea such a correction as was a greater benefite, namely to be receiued into the eternall land of promise, then the punishment was, that they should not enter into the earthly possession.

Likewise I reported, that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc. mer. ac rem. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laide vpon Dauid after [...]his adultery re­mitted, was the chastisment of Gods fatherly scourge. Bristowe asketh, if it be no punishment, because it is a scourge? yes verily: and whether it be not for sinne? yes truly. But neuer the sooner a temporall debt remai­ning after absolution, when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement. For I chastice not my childe, that his pu­nishment should satisfie any part of his fault, but to keepe him in humility, and feare for committing the like, and for example to the rest of my family, as wise a father and diuine as Bristowe will esteme me. And how can Bristowe defend Augustine against the Pelagians, shewing why death that came in by sinne, stil remaineth euen vpon them whose original sinnes he confesseth to be so fully forgiuen in baptisme, y ^t they owe nothing, neither eternally nor temporally for them: if death in such, be any temporall debt, remaining after absolu­tion, when he will haue the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfie the debt of sinne.

But for a contradictorie of Allens assertion, I cited out of Chrysostome in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is for­giuenesse, there is no punishment. Bristow saith, he spea­keth of the forgiuenesse in baptisme to a Iewe: Allen of forgiuenesse in penance. But he may not creepe out at that hole, it is too straight for him. Chrysostome spea­keth generally, wheresoeuer there is forgiuenesse, there is no punishment, yea he saith, Vbi gratia ibi & venia, where grace is, there is forgiuenesse therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiuenesse, and where there is forgiuenesse, there shalbe no punishment: neither doth Chrysostome in that place speake a word, either of Iewe, or Baptisme, but of all Christians escaping by grace, the [Page 239] wrath which the lawe worketh, and beeing made heires of the promise by faith.

The third thing is satisfaction, against which, Bristow saith, I alledged Chrysostome, and Ambrose so fondly, that the wordes which I alledge will declare, Chrysost. De ‘ Compunct. Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit, &c. God requireth not the burthen of shirts of haire, nor to be shutte vp in the streightes of a little cell, neither doth he commaunde vs to sitte in obscure and darke caues: This onely is that which is required of vs, that we alwayes remember our sinnes.’ He requireth onely compunction of the heart, therefore he requireth no workes of satisfaction, neither those, nor any other. Bristow will see nothing, but the streight mourning of Monkes. The worde onely is so litle for his purpose, that he cannot see it. And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can, Chry­sostome saith it is besides Gods commandement.

To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter. I read of his teares, I reade not of his satisfaction. Bristowe replyeth, that he saith immediatly before, I finde not what he said, I finde that he wept. Wherevpon he will gather, both confession, and satisfaction necessa­rie. I would faine see that collection in a syllogisme.

Surely if they were both necessarie, S. Peter, by iudge­ment of Ambrose, lacked two necessarie pointes of re­pentance, which Iudas had, and yet obteyned not for­giuenesse: But teares (saith he) are a speciall kinde of confession and satisfaction. And yet where Ambrose sayeth, they obteine pardon, Bristowe saith, they are not sufficient: so that Peter weeping, hauing beside his in­ward contrition a speciall kinde of confession and satis­faction, had not y ^t which wold serue. But Br. leauing this place as obscure, referreth vs to a plain place. Ad vir. Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime, is necessary a passing great satisfactiō. wherto I answered before, y ^t an heinous offēce must be earnestly bewailed, if the repentāce be not coū ­terfet, Brist. saith, He doubted not of her repentance to be vnfei­ned. What thē? He exhorteth her to continue her repen­tance, not for satisfaction to God, whose iustice cānot be [Page 240] sa [...]isfied by mans worke, but by her earnest sorrowe, to satisfie the Church which was offended by her whore­dome.

The fourth thing is pardons, whereof Bristowe spea­keth as he doth commonly, with wonderfull confusion. I saide the olde satisfaction was in respect of the offence vnto the Church, and not to satisfie the iustice of God, which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enioyned by the Church, vpon good considera­tion, might be and often was released by the Church, as appeareth by many places of Cyprian, which Bristowe citeth and many other, but not by the Bishop only, and this release or remission, was called indulgence or par­don, which is no more like to Popish pardons, then the creaking of a goose, is like the songe of a swanne. But as for pardoning of sinne, they affirmed that it was proper to God, as Ambrose to the virgine. ‘Sticke to penance euen to the end of thy life, and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day, for he deceiueth thee that so promiseth the. For thou y ^t hast in speciall sinned against the Lorde, it is meete that of him only thou looke for remedy in the day of iudgement.’ Bristowe saith, He did binde her to penance all her life, bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand, as he bounde the Emperour Theodosius indefinitely, and loosed him after eight moneths pe­nance, with a pardon. Who seeth not, quoth Bristow, that all this maketh plainly for pardons?

But Ambrose telleth her, not, that he would not pardon her, but that no man can pardon the offence committed against God, and that if the Pope himselfe should promise to pardon her, he should but deceiue her. And yet the Church might pardon the offence and slander where with they were iustly offended, by her whoredome, and restore her to the Communion, as I doubt not but they did; although she should continue her repentance, al the daies of her life, & when Ambrose did binde and loose the Emperor, he did only vse the discipline of the Church, to bring him to repentance, that God might forgiue his sinnes, not that he might [Page 241] make satisfaction for y ^e slaughter of 7000. men, of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. moneths penance, but after such time, seeing him to be sorrowfull in deede, receiued him againe into the communion. The place of Cyprian In Sermon. de Lapsis is very cleare to shewe that God and not man, forgiueth the sinnes. ‘Let no man deceiue himselfe, let no man beguile himselfe, only our Lord can giue mercy, only he can graunt par­don to sinnes, as beeing committed against him, who hath borne our sinnes, who hath suffered sorrow for vs, whom God hath deliuered for our sinnes. Man cannot be greater then God, neither can the seruant by his in­dulgence remitt or [...]orgiue that which by so greate of­fence, is committed against the Lorde, least this offence also be added to him, that is fallen, if he knowe not that it is foreshewed, Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man. Our Lorde must be entreated, our Lorde must be pacified, with our satisfaction, which saith, he doth denie that man that denieth him.’

Against this so plaine a place: Bristowe cauelleth, that he speaketh to impenitents, that trusted also in laie mens pardons: which is false, for they were not altoge­ther impenitent, but not sufficiently repentant, neither did they trust in laie mens pardons, but without dewe repentance tried, made hast to be reconciled by en­treaty of the Martyrs, yet with the hurtfull facility of the priests, whereof Cyprian complaineth: ‘ Sic oportet Dei Sacerdotem: So it behoueth the priest of God not to deceiue with the deceiuable ye [...]lding, but to prouide with wholesome remedies.’ As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristowe would haue to be noted, were not pardons of sinnes, but release of time of separation en­ioined by the Church to shewe repentance for their sinnes, as I declared before. Which is euen as auncient as the Gospell, whereas popish pardons Apoena & culpa, are of a much newer stampe, and contrary to the aunci­ent custome in the giuers, for they were geuen by the whole Church, in the persons, for they were giuen to men a liue only, in the time, for they were giuen but [Page 242] of a short time of penance enioyned in this life, and not of so many thousand yeares, &c. in the thing relea­sed, for they were neither pardons of punishment, nor of sinne dewe to Gods iustice, but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church, when the Church was other­wise satisfied.

7 Of Purgatorie, of the Canonicall memento, of oblations, & Bristowe. of sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church.

Bristowe chargeth me to vse the arguments from Fulke. mens authoritie negatiuely, which I my selfe confesse to be naught, but he mistaketh the matter: I saide the order of prayers and administration of the holie myste­ries, described by Iustinus, and Tertullian, doe suffici­ently declare what was the vsage of the Christians in those purer times, in which no mention beeing made of oblations and sacrifice for the deade, it is certaine, there was none vsed, not onely because there is no mention, but because those two olde Fathers in their Apologies, declare whatsoeuer was done in their assem­blies. As for oblations for the dead, that Tertullian speaketh of, cannot be proued to haue beene vsed at the communion, but rather at the buriall of the dead. But Arnobius (saith Bristow) about the very same time, as a witnes to the contrarie, complayning that the connen­ticle houses of the Christians, were pulled downe by the Paganes, in which God is prayed vnto, peace, & par­don is asked, for al men, for the Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the liuing and for the dead. Such a say­ing there is in Arnobius, Lib. 4. Con. gra. I confesse, but how proueth Bristowe, that he was about the time of Iustinus, or Tertullian, when he confesseth it was 300, yeares since Christians were named, Lib. 1? and vnder Dioclesian he florished, saieth Hierome, which was sixe or seuen score yeres after Tertullian, the later of the two who florished vnder Seuerus.

The olde liturgie of the Greeke Church in Epipha­nius time, had a memorie of the dead, but seeing it was [Page 243] an oblation for the Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles, &c. in the first institution thereof, it could be but an of­fering of thankes giuing, although Epiphanius expoun­ded it after the errour of this time, to be a prayer for the sinner, & a separation of Christ from the order of men. This is the effect of that I saide. Bristowe saith, I am de­ceiued, by thinking it is but one memorie, whereof Epi­phanius speaketh, and sendeth me to the countefeit li­turgies of Saint Iames, Chrysostome, and Basil, which were written long after their age, according as well to y ^e error of the time, in which they were writtē, as in some expressing the name of the Emperour, and Bishop, in whose time they were written. Also he sendeth me to diuers places of S. Augustine, but which I knowe not, for the place Encherid C. 110. & Dulci. q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed, which he saith for the very good are thankesgiuing, for them that were not very ill asking of mercie, for the verie ill no helpe, but a comfort of the liuing. Chrysostome al­so speaketh of a generall memorie of all that were de­parted, instituted by y ^e Apostles Ad Philip. hom. 3. in which if there had bene an expresse forme of prayer for y ^e dead, he needed not of that memorie, to haue proued prayer to be profitable to the dead. The place of Origen he man­gleth, euen as his Maister Allen doth, but he more vsu­ally, suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together, without preiudice of his interlacing. In ‘ Iob lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth, louing but one life, and not hoping for any other after this. But now doe we not celebrate the day of na­tiuitie, seeing it is the entrance of sorowes & tēptations, but we celebrate y ^e day of death, as y ^t which is y ^e putting away of al sorowes, & the escaping of al tēptations. We celebrate y ^e day of death, because they doe not die that seeme to die. Therfore also do we make memories of y ^e Saints, & deuoutly kepe the memories of our parents or friends, dying in the faith, as much reioycing in their rest, as desiring also for our selues a godly finishing in faith. So therfore we do not celebrate y ^e day of natiuitie, [Page 244] because they which die shall liue perpetually. And thus we celebrate it, calling together the deuoute men with the Priestes, the faithfull with the Cleargie, inuiting al­so the needie and poore, filling the fatherlesse and wi­dowes with foode, that our festiuitie may be done in remembrance of the rest, which is vnto the soules de­parted, whose memorie we celebrate, and may be made of vs a sauour of sweetenesse in the sight of the e­ternal God.’ First concerning my translation, Bristowe will haue Religiosos to signifie Monkes, as though none were deuout, but they, or as though the Church in Ori­gens time, were so full of Monkes, as it was afterward. Secondly he saith, that death is a putting away of the so­rowes of this life only, where Origen saith of all, and it were small cause of reioysing, to put off the small sor­rowes of this life, if men should enter the horrible tor­ments of Purgatorie. Againe, the rest of the dead, he will haue to be onely of their bodies. That were a poore re­frigerium, if their soules should frie in Purgatorie. The sauour of sweetenesse he wil not haue to be a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, but a worke meritorious, as though it was a worke meritorious, that Noe offered cleane beastes after the floode, when the text saith, the Lorde smelled a sweete sauour, Gen. 8. and not rather a sa­crifice of thankesgiuing for his deliueraunce. The like ignorance (he saith) I shewe, to thinke that memorie for one, cannot be a prayer for him. As S. Paule to the Colloss. Remember my giues: and to the Hebrues, Re­member them that are in giues, &c. But where did I say so ignorantly, that prayer may not be ioyned with re­membrance? For I trust Bristow is not so brutish, to say that all memorie is a prayer. But how skilfull is he, to compare the memorie of imprisonment, which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned, with the me­morie of rest which beeing obteined, what should we pray for? As for the wordes in S. Iames his Masse, which was written by some Sir Iames, many hundreth yeares after Origens death, I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude vnto them.

[Page 245] Where Cyprian saith, that Victor deserued not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests, I shewed by diuerse good reasons, that he meaneth not of prayer for him, but such as was of thankesgiuing for the dead, and for the like godly departure of the faithfull liuing. For his offence in making a Clarke executor, was not to be punished with eternall torments, wherto Bristow an­swereth by telling of three things done in their Masse, which he saith were done in Cyprians time, but that is the matter in controuersie. my reasons alledged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all.

I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Coun­cells at once, the Councell of Carthage the 4, Cap. 95. & the Councell of Vase, which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the deade, which they had bequeathed to the vse of the poore: Al­len saith to excommunicate them, that hinder the obla­tions for the deade. Now commeth Bristowe and saith, it is but meere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the deade, & oblations for the deade, because Cyprian saith, there should be no offering for Victor. I haue shewed, Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thankesgiuing, and this discipline was not to cutt him from the Church, but an admonition to other. As for the other Councells of Toledo 11. Bracharense, with this of Carthage and Vase, I haue answered Pur. 426. against which, Bristowe here saith nothing, but repeateth them with his vsuall interlardings.

The Councell Bracharense, which I twise promised to shewe forth against Purgatory, when I came to it, Bri­stow saith, I plainly confesse the contrary, to wit a me­mory for the deade. I said that for them that kill them selues, that Councell decreed, that no commemoration should be made. Ca. 34. & what this cōmemoration i [...], I said it appeareth in y ^e next Canon, where they cal it the commemoration of the holy oblation, that is, they de­creed, that no communion should be celebrated, in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, no mention of them that so died should be in [Page 246] their thankesgiuing, as was vsed for them that died well.

Out of the 3. Toletan. Cap 22. I shewed that it was de­creed that the bodies of the faithfull should be buried only with singing of psalmes, which must be thought sufficient for all Christians: this I said, excluded both prayers and oblations for the deade.

Bristow cauelleth, that although in carrying the corps to the grane, they vsed to singe psalmes, yet they might haue prayer & oblation for their soules in the Church. I answere, the councell thinketh singingof psalmes suffi­cient for the office of their buriall, therefore prayer and oblation were thought needelesse. But that they had prayer and oblation in Spaine, for the deade, he would proue by a saying of Augustine De cur. pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custome of the vniuersall Church is, that in the prayers of the priest, which are made to God at the altar, the commendation also of the deade hath his place. This commendation might be without pray­er, as in the olde liturgie the oblation for all the Pa­triarkes, Prophets, Apostles &c. or if it were in speciall forme of prayer for the deade in Affrica, it proueth not that it was in Spaine. For Augustine speaketh of the v­niuersall Church, no farther then his owne knowledge, or if it were in his time, it might afterward be reformed in Spaine, as diuers other errors were, namely in that Councell of Toledo, and other before it. But Bristowe vrgeth me farther, and saith, I might as well say, the Pa­pists pray not for the deade, because they carry the corps with psalmes. But he will neuer see the litle worde, only, ioyned in the Canon to psalmes, nor the sufficiency of the office for the buriall of all Christians. Againe he demandeth of De profundis, being a psalme, Is it not a pray­er for the deade, trowe you? I trowe no. Except all pray­ers that men make for them selues, be prayers for the deade.

As for the buriall of papists, claimed by ministers in England, I thinke you belie them, for they could be [Page 247] content you had all the obstinate papists in your bo­some at Loueine, quicke and deade: But such as die a­mong vs, we are not nice in denying them buriall in the vsuall cemiteries, although we communicate not with them in their life, yet alwaies protesting, that more seuere discipline were meete for them in their life, and to be executed vpon them euen in their death, after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor.

I saide farther, that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funerall of Saint Augustine, proueth that the sa­crifice offred for the commending of his bodies deposi­tion, was the sacrifice of thanksgiuing. Here first Bri­stowe accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity, that I vn­derstand deposition for the putting of his body by death, where it is the laying downe of it in the earth, as Leuatio corporis, is the taking vp of Saints bodies or re­liques, a worshipfull witnesse of antiquity. For Cyril­lus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. Iulian. But marke how skillfully Bristowe expoundeth Possidonius, saying, The sacrifice was offred to God, for the commending of his bodies deposition. That is, saith Bristowe (expositione prima) for the laying downe of it in the earth by burying. Why might not his body be laide in the graue without a propiciatory sacrifice? The second exposition is, that by commen­ding the deposition of his body, which is the laying it downe in the graue, he meaneth, the commendation of his soule to God.

With such expositions hee may prooue what hee will out of the Doctors. But to admitt this monstrous interpretation, how agreeth it with popery? or Augu­stines owne opinion, that seing he was a perfect man & died in persecution, while his City was besieged, & the same day it was taken, that any sacrifice, should be of­fred for his soule, seeing he himselfe saith, it is iniury to pray for a Martyr, De Verb. Ap. 517? But that prayers for the deade were vsed in Saint Augustines time, and at the celebration of the Lords Supper, it is not of me [Page 248] denied, and therefore needed not of Bristowe to be pro­ued. But he will make me both answerer and replyer, Because I graunt that S. Augustine prayed for his pa­rent, and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui, a memorie of her to be a memorie for her, as though she would haue her sonne to be a Chantrie Priest, to sing for her.

First I say, that if the Pope himselfe, translate Memo­riam sui, a memorie for her, the translation is false. Se­condly, where he saith, the sacrifice of our price was offe­red for her: I shewed that before, that so he called the celebration of the Lordes Supper, vnderstanding it ne­uerthelesse not to bee the sacrifice it selfe, that bee­ing once offered, did perfectly redeeme vs, but a me­morie and thankesgiuing for the same, as I shewed out of Augustine and other Doctours, Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest vnto the leafe 327.

Finally, Bristowe citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers, the whole Church doth obserue, that for them which are departed in the communion of Christes bodie and bloud, when at the healthfull sacrifice they are remembred in their place, prayer is made, and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also: I answere this oblation, being generall for all that are departed in the faith of Christ, can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine, as they called it, in remembrance of the onely and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ, as S. Au­gustine calleth his propitiatorie sacrifice, coulde be no propitiation, but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, or pro­speritie, or praise. August. Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. & 21. Contra aduers. Leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19. 20. and many other places through out his workes.

Of particular Doctours. Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie. Bristowe.

That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead, Bristowe citeth many places but without neede, seeing Fulke. [Page 249] I con [...]esse it: but that he neuer doubted of Purgatorie, that is not proued thereby. The Grecians at this day deny Purgatorie, yet do they allowpraier for the dead. Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher. Chapter. 69. ‘It is not incredible, that such a thing is done, euen af­ter this life, and whether it be so or no, it may be enqui­red. And either it may be found out or remaine hid, that some faithfull men by a certaine Purgatorie fire, by how much more or lesse they haue loued perishing goodes, to be saued sooner or later: yet not such of whō it is saide, that they shall not possesse the kingdome of GOD, except the same crimes be remitted to them conueniently repenting.’

Bristowes answere is, that there are two Purgatorie fires, the one to punish soules for sinne, wherof S. Augustine is certaine: the other not to punish sinne, but onely to weare out by little & little, such affections to worldely lawfull thinges, as to wiue, &c. that without griefe of minde, he cannot parte from them, so as the other which builded Golde, &c. whereof Augustine is vncertaine. Afterwarde he concludeth, they are two operations of one Purgatorie, the one to purge sinne with punishment, the other to purge worldly lawfull affections. If there be but one Purgatorie fire, Augustine doubteth not onely of the punishment, but of the purging fire. But Augustine speaketh not of purging lawfull affections, for what purgation should there neede, where no vnlawful thing is to be purged? But of vnlawfull affections of worldly lawfull thinges, which are loued so farre aboue mea­sure, that they cannot be lost for Christes sake, with­out greefe: these Cupiditates greedie desires, Augustine calleth the wood, Strawe, and stubble, which is builded vpon the foundation Christ, vpon whome it is sinne to builde any thing, but Golde, Siluer, or pearles, &c. 1. Cor. 3. so that it is sinne that Augustine speaketh of. Whereof he doubteth, whether it is purged by a Purga­torie fire after this life. Againe vtterly excluding im­penitent sinners, from hope of this purging fire, it is manifest, that of penitent sinners he maketh this doubt, whether they may be saued by this Purgatory fire, after [Page 250] their death. Wherfore Bristows distinction is cleane con­trary to Augustines meaning. Likewise wher he maketh a doubt whether such worldly lawful affections remain in the soules of the elect, departed, as loue of wife &c. he shamefully slaundereth Saint Augustine, as though he helde any such opinion, when no such thing can be gathered out of his wordes falsifying to his purpose the Doctors wordes, which are Rerum secularium quamuis licitè concessarum tales cupiditates: Such greedy desires of world­ly, although things lawfully graunted, to call them such worldly lawfull affections, whereas Augustine saith not, that such affections are lawfull, but that the world­ly things are lawfull, on which such affection is sett. Likewise Ad Dulci. quaestion. prima. he bringeth for exam­ple, a certaine carnall affection towarde riches, a cogi­tation of those things which are of this worlde, how a man should please his wife &c to be this wood, haie, &c. and likewise doubtfully concludeth whether therefore in this life only, men suffer these things, or whether cer­taine such iudgments followe after this life &c. exclu­ding againe murderers, fornicators, lyers periurers, &c. The like doubt he maketh De Ciuit. Dei Lib 21. Ca. 26. say­ing, that peraduenture it is true that this purging fier is in this lite onely, peraduenture after this life onely, or both in this life and after, but yet for all men to passe through, the perfect without sense, they that are entangled with these veniall sinnes, with sense of paine and losse &c.

But Augustine (saith Bristowe) sheweth himselfe cer­teine of purging paines De Ciuitate Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 24. saying it is certeine that such men are purged before Doomesday by temporall paines &c. As for this place, being not founde in many auncient written coppies as Viues sheweth, seemeth to be a corrupted place added by other, not written by Augustine. The like may be suspected of the place Cap. 13. of the same Booke, where he reporteth what he had said before of remitting sinnes in the worlde to come, which yet is not to be founde in that Booke, as for the places of Enchirid. Cap. 110. and Ad [Page 251] Dulc. [...]. 2. which he quoteth, haue nothing but of praiers for the dead. Wherfore Augustine although he allowed prayer for the dead, to auaile them remaining in secret receptacles, as he termeth them Enchirid. Cap. 109. yet he was not certeine of Purgatory. Touching inuocati­on of Saints (which I confessed Augustine to allowe according to the error of his time) and prayers to be profitable for the deade, I said Pur. 317. that Augustine is full of doubts and questions in the matter, and first whether the mothers supplication to the Martyr profited her sonne, Augustine said, that did profite him buried in the holy place, if any thing profited. Whereof I gathe­red, that he speake [...]h doubtfully. Bristow crieth out that I am past all shame: for Augustiue neuer doubted whether such supplication might profitte, but whether the mother had any such cogitation. I aunswere, he doubted at least, whether such kinde of supplication did profite or no: for the doubt of her cogitation was ex­pressed before in an other condition, Si quidem credidit, if she beleeue, &c. But to refell my impudencie, as it should seeme, he hath heaped vp a sorte of places, to proue that Saint Augustine clearely affirmed supplicati­on to Saints to profitte the deade: first, Non inaniter fiun [...], they be not made in vaine. Cap. 1. But these wordes are not in that Chapiter. He saith there Ne (que) Ecclesia inaniter, Neither the Church nor the frendes care for the deade bestoweth in vain such deuotion as it can: where he spea­keth of prayers for the deade, but not of supplication to the Martyrs. Secondly he citeth Prosunt quibusdam mor­tuis, they profitte one sort of the deade Cap. vlt. but nei­ther are there such wordes, nor for such purpose. Third­ly, Non sunt praetermittende, they must not be omitted, C [...] 4. also, Fiunt recta fide, ac pietate, they be made with right faith, and pietie, Cap. 4. These wordes in deede are there, but of prayers for the deade generally, although there also in the same Chapiter to his purpose which he no­teth not: last of all, Religiosus amicus, &c. they be neces­sary, the deuout frend must in no case omitte them Ca. 5. [Page 252] the necessarie supplications he speaketh of, are prayers generally, not that prayer to Saintes, are of him called necessarie supplications. But vnto all the other doubtes, which I in the place aboue quoted, had noted out of that treatise of Augustine Bristowe speaketh not a worde.

Whether S. Augustine denied Purgatorie. Bristowe

Bristowe rehearseth my wordes (with such fidelitie Fulke. as is vsuall to Papistes) as though I had saide, that Saint Augustine denied Purgatorie by the name of Purgato­rie, whereas my wordes are, that he seemeth to deme all other receptacles of the soules departed, beside heauen and hell. But of a third place (saith he,) we are altogether ignorant, neither do we finde it in the holie Scriptures. Hypog, Cont. Pel De Verb. Apost. Ser. 14. Bristowe sayeth, I answere it my selfe, in saying, he writeth against the Pelagians, that imagined a third place for the euerla­sting rest of infantes that were not baptized. But what saith Bristowe to my reply? which is this, The same rea­son serueth as well against the Popish Purgatorie, be­cause we finde it not in the holie Scriptures. Bristowe asketh whether Saint Augustine doth so reason against it? As though that were materiall, when the reason will binde one man as wel as another, and one matter as wel as another. As for his opinion of prayer for the dead, as I haue often saide, proueth not a thirde place: as for the two places De Ciu. Dei. lib. 21. cap. 13. & 24. the one mani­festly corrupted, the other iustly suspected, I haue spo­ken to them both alreadie.

Other Doctors about prayer for the dead. Bristowe.

I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur, That no man can be absolued of the Pope after his death: and Fulke. wherefore then serue the Popes Pardons? Bristowe an­swereth, that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion, and not for excommunicate persons. Verie well: yet are you not escaped. For where is the Popes commission for pardoning? Quodeunque, &c [Page 253] Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth, it shalbe loo­sed in heauen, &c. if this be your commission, as well for giuing pardōs, as for absoluing excommunicate per­sons, this commission cannot be exercised but vpon the liuing. ‘We read, saith Gel [...]sius, that Christe did raise the dead: we reade not that he did absolue them that di­ed in errour.’ (If I had pleasure to enterlarde the Doc­tors sayinges as you haue, I should adde that we reade not that Christ gaue pardon to any in Purgatorie.) ‘And because he alone had power onely this to doe, he com­mitted it to Peter the Apostle principally, Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth, it shabe loosed also in hea­uen, &c.’ He saith vpon earth, for he neuer saide, that he was to be absolued which died in his binding. Likewise that this authoritie giuen by this texte, be it more or lesse, is to be exercised onely vpon men liuing on the earth: you may read, ‘ C. 24 q. 2. Quod autem. And that no man can be excommunicated or absolued after his death, it is shewed by the wordes of the Gospell, in which it is said: whatsoeuer you shal binde &c. he saith: vpon the earth, not vnder the earth. Where I cited out of Cyprian Cont. Demetr. Pur. 140. when men are depar­ted from hence, there is no place of repentance, no ef­fect of satisfaction, Here life is either lost or saued, Here prouision is made for euerlasting life, by the worship­ping of the fruite of faith:’ Bristowe chargeth me with clipping, because I left out the last periode, which is nei­ther to nor fro my purpose. Likewise where I said, he exhorteth Demetrianus himselfe to repentance, which had bene a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians, he chargeth me with changing, for I should haue said, which presently was. I changed no worde of Cyprian, in saying, he had beene, and a reasonable man would haue vnderstoode me, that he presently was such a one, when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance. But what is the answere? This which is expresly written of Infidells in hell, and of baptisme, I pretend to be writ­ten of the faithfull in Purgatory, and of penance after baptisme. I answere, Cyprian speaketh generally of all [Page 254] men, & not of Infidels only, & of al men in this world and not of Infidels in hell. ‘ Nec quisquam, &c. Neither let any man be staide: either by sinnes or by yeares that he should not come to obteine saluation. To him that remaineth still in this worlde, no repentance is to late. The way is open vnto pardon: and to them that seeke and vnderstand the trueth, the accesse is easie.’

Finally after he had saide, that passage is from death to life, the place by me cited, he addeth, ‘ Hanc graii­am, This grace Christ bestoweth, this gift of his mercie he giueth by subduing death with the trophee of his crosse, redeeming the beleeuer with the price of his bloud, reconciling man to God his father, quickening a mortall man by heauenly regeneration. Him, if it may be, let vs all followe, let vs be esteemed by his sa­crament and signe, he openeth vnto vs the way of life, he restoreth vs to Paradise, he bringeth vs to the king­dome heauen: with him we shall alwayes liue, &c.’ These wordes declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one meane of saluation, as well for the Gentile to be bap­tised, as for the penitent Christian by the onely mercie of God in Christe obteined in this life, without any satisfaction of paine, for euer after this life: and there­fore he saith moreouer, ‘That beeing made the sonnes of God by Christ, restored by his bloud, we shall alwayes reioyce with him. We Christians shall be together with Christ glorious, blessed of God our father, reioy­cing of perpetuall pleasure, alwayes in the sight of God, and alwayes giuing thankes to God. For he can not be but alwayes ioyfull and glad, which when he was guilrie of death, is made sure of immortality.’ Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus, if he did repent, but euen immediately before his death, and were bapti­sed, that he should enioye the same state of felicitie, with all faithfull Christians, in perpetuall ioy after death with Christ.

In like maner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this worlde, while confession may be receiued, and satisfaction and remission made [Page 255] by the Priest is acceptable to God, which he speaketh generally, as if he had saide, no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest, auaileth to them that are departed.

To the place of Chrysostome whiche I cited against himselfe: Pur. 251. Bristowe after he hath remoued the question from the cause to the person, answereth that no friend, no iust man shall helpe him, that dieth in mortal sinne, either committing euil or doing no good. I say no more but as I saide before, Let it be compared with Chrysostomes other saying, the Homilie next be­fore 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter. Pur. 242. If thou yet chance, &c. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead, I ci­ted in Psalm. 4. Bene, &c. The Prophet did well to adde on earth, for if he be not cleansed here, he can not be cleansed there. I should haue saide, cleane (saith Bri­stowe:) for though he be not cleane from veniall sinnes, he may be cleansed there, as also from the temporall debt of his remitted mortall sinnes. But he forgetteth the worde of the Psalme, out of which Ambrose ma­keth his note: Vt emundet cum in terra, that he may cleanse him on earth: why was it well added on earth, if he might be cleansed after this life? There is no cleansing but on earth.

Where Ambrose was alledged by Allen Pur. 104. to proue that euerie man immediately after his death, doth feele that he must looke for in the day of iudgement, I saide Purgatorie 105. I maruell wherefore it is brought in, if it bee not to ouerthrowe Purgatorie. For if it be true, no man feeleth paine after this life, but he that shall feele it eternally. This laste conclusion although Bristowe confesse, that Saint Ambrose him selfe sayeth it expressely in other places, yet he asketh howe I can inferre it of the wordes of Saint Ambrose In ep. ad Rom. Cap. 5. which I inferre not of his wordes, but of Allens wordes, citing the place of Ambrose, as though the wordes were these: And there­fore Saint Ambrose saith: that without delay the good poore man [Page] was carryed to rest, and the wicked rich out of hand suffered tor­ments. THAT EVERY MAN (saith he) MAIE FEELE BEFORE THE DAIE OF IVDGE­MENT, WHAT HE MVST THEN LOOKE FOR. Bristowe leauing Allen, as he doth commonly, breechelesse, sheweth the wordes of Ambrose to be o­therwise, as they are in deede. Which I will rehearse somewhat more at large then Bristowe hath done. ‘ Max­ima pars mundi &c. The greatest part of the worlde did not knowe, that God should be their iudge: and very fewe there were, ouer whom death did not raigne. But they ouer whom it raigned, after this death, which is called the first, were receiued of the second deathe vnto paine and destruction to come: but they ouer whome death raigned not, because they haue not sinned in the similitude of the transgression of Adam, were re­serued vnder hope vnto the comming of our Sauiour in a free place, as it is read of Abraham, that although he was in the lower partes, yet he was disseuered by a large distance, so that there was a greate goulphe be­twene the iust and the sinners: how much more should there be to the godly and iust a c [...]olinge, to the sinners parching heate, to the vngodly burning heate, that it might not be hidden before the iudgement, what euery one was worthy of.’ This that Ambrose speaketh of the difference of the paines of the damned, before Christ, Bristowe by his accustomed interlacing would haue it seeme, as though he spake of Purgatory: for to sinners he addeth Catholiques, to the impious or vngodly, be­retikes. But he marketh not the conclusion, that such heate as they felte after their death, they should feele after the iudgement. Againe, Non latet he translateth might be partly knowne, as though that which is not hidde, is not manifestly and wholy knowne. That I ci­ted out of Saint Ambrose De bono mortis: That death maketh no mans state worse, but such as it findeth in e­uerie one, such it reserueth to the iudgement to come: Bristowe saith, that Purgatorie altereth not the state of the euill to worse, nor promoteth the state of the [Page 257] good to better, but euery mans state is according to the merites of his life, nor hee that is cleansed in Purga­tory hath his merites multiplied or amplified, but veniall sinnes and temporall debts taken away. In deede if the state of a thing were nothing, but that you will allowe it to be, it were somewhat that you say: but who will say, that he which is in torments in Purgatory, is in as good state as he that is in pleasure or ease of this life? or that he which is discharged of such debts, as you say must be paide in Purgatory, is not in better state, then he that now dieth and must be cast into the scal­ding house, for such payment? But that you may vnder­stand he speaketh not of the death of the wicked, which must abie for it, as Bristow saith: he addeth Ipsa quiete fouet, it cherisheth with rest: this cannot be of the wicked to whō there is no rest, but to the godly, which al imme­diatly after death enioye rest, notwithstanding they be not all alike good, for of two sortes only Ambrose spea­keth, the wicked in torments after death, because of their wicked life, & the godly in rest. He speaketh there­fore of the godly that death maketh not their state worse, as he saide immediatly before, Quia portus quidan [...] ect, because death is a certaine hauen of them which be­ing tos [...]ed in the great Sea of this life, desire a harborow of faithfull rest.

To the counterfet auctority of Eusebius Emissenus, that hath serued for a patch to peece so many Homilies like the Cukcowes song, I will say no more then I said Pur. 143 The auctority of Bernard in this case I alwaies refused, as a late writer not sufficient to testify of the old faith or errors either.

Whether Purgatory be only for veniall sinnes. Bristow [...].

Standing vpon Augustines iudgement Enchirid. Cap Fulke. 69. and other places, I maintained, that Purgatory could not be by his iudgment, for greate offences which by pe­nance are made small. Against which Allen cited Au­gustine De vera & falsa poenitentia: that some sinnes are mort [...]l, which by repentance are made venial, &c. which [Page 258] if they be not purged in this life, require punishment a [...] ­ter this life, &c. And Bristow noteth thē more at large, as though I had not vnderstood them, or not read y ^e booke. The truth is, I made none account of y ^e counter [...]et book, but noted the impudencie of Allen, that would cite it against the certaine and knowen iudgement of Augu­stine. Wheras this counterfeit booke, if nothing else did bewray it, in the 17. Chapiter rehearseth the opinion of Augustine by name, and doth confute it.

But Bristowe passeth impudence it selfe, while he al­ledgeth for the same with Allen Enchir. Ad laurent. Cap. 71. Where Augustine saith of the Lordes praier in them that are regenerate. ‘ Delet omnino, &c. That praier altoge­ther putteth away those small and daily sinnes. Also it putteth away euen those sinnes, from which the life of the faithfull that hath bene wickedly ledde, but by [...]epenting beeing chaunged into better, departeth. Here he saith expresly, that by repentaunce and praier, great offences are cleane wiped away, euen as small.’ But how doth Bristowe proue hereof, that mortall sinnes are become venial [...]? Which also in the next worlde hee admitteth. Cap. 6 [...]. (saith Bristowe). But what doth he admitte? that small sinnes may be purged peraduen­ture in the next life. What, B [...]istowe? haue you forgot­ten what you helde euen in this Chapter, vnder the ti­tle (whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatorie Fol. 250.) that he speaketh not of purging sinnes, but of purging worldly lawfull affections, wi [...]h greefe of minde, &c.? But admitte he speaketh of purging small sinnes in that place, by Purgatorie fier, as indeede he doth, although before you denied the same: how proue you our present controuersy, that mortall sinnes forgi­uen, become veniall, and may be purged in Purgatorie▪ you say Cap. 70. Infanda crimina, &c. The hainou [...] offen­ces, if they be forgiuen. Si conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remitiuntur: He granteth they may be saued by Purgatorie fier, after this life. Good Lorde, what will you be ashamed to affirme? There is no such thing in that Chapter, no nor in that which goeth before, [Page 259] these wordes are not. But after he hath declared his doubt of them, that haue loued perishing goodes, whe­ther they may be saued by purgatorie fire after this life: he saith, Non tamen tales de quibus dictū est quòd regnū Dei nō possidebunt, nisi conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remit­ [...]ntur. Yet not such, of whom it is said, that they shal not possesse the kingdome of God, except vnto them conue­niently repenting the same crimes be forgiuen. Here al­though perhaps you may gather, that such persons are not excluded, yet can not you inferre, that for their great sinnes remitted, they should goe thither, but for their small sinnes, such as he spake of before. What the opinion is of him that made the 41. Homilie De Sanctis vnder y ^e name of Augustine, it forceth not great­ly, seeing he doth not expounde th [...]t place 1. Cor 3. as Augustine himselfe doth in many places: and yet hol­deth that not capitall, but small sinnes are purged with that fier.

8 Of Limbus Patrum. Bristowe.

I denied not but Augustine was of opinion that the Fulke. fathers before Christ were in hell, no not in that booke Contr. Feliciam. Arrian. But I wished his reason to be marked, wherefore he counted it blasphemous to say, that our sauiours soule was committed to prison in he [...], because the soules of good men are immediatly called to Paradise, much more the soule of Christ, who com­mended the same into his fathers hand, and promised to be with the theefe the same daie in Paradise. To this reason Bristowe aunswereth nothing.

In the saying of I renaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 33. cited by Allen, I said it seemeth the name Adam to be taken for a com­mon name of mankinde. But Bristowe wondereth at my blinde ignorance, as not knowing, that Tatianus against whom Irenaeus writeth, denied the saluation of Adam the first man.

As though it were necessary therefore, that Adam in this place must signifie that singular man: whereas it is euident, that rendring a cause why Saint Luke begin­ning the genealogie at Christe, endeth it in Adam, [Page 260] he disputeth first, of the mystery of our redemption ge­nerally, from Christ extending vnto all ages: and saith, ‘ Necesse fuit &c. It was necessary, that our Lorde com­ming vnto the lost sheepe, and making a recapitulation of so greate a disposition, and seeking his owne worke­manship, to saue euen the same man which was made hi [...] image and similitude, that is Adam filling the times of his condemnation which was for disobedience &c.’ I see not what greate blindnesse it is here to take Adam for mankinde, as well as the lost sheepe: but admitt he meaneth our first parent, which I denied not: of what skill proceeded it in Allen, to interpret these wordes of Christs descending into hell, which is the matter there in question, when they are manifest of Christs incarna­tion, to saue all mankinde both the Fathers and vs?

The other place of Irenaeus Lib. 5. almost in the end, I saide to ouerthrowe the Popish fantasie of Limbus, I might haue added also of Purgatory, where Irenaeus af­firmeth, that Christ after his death, went into such a place, as all his disciples shall rest in, vntill the time of the generall resurrection, which was the place where the deade were before. Bristowe replyeth, he saith not, that the disciples shall goe into the same place y ^t Christ went, but into an inuisible place &c. whereto I answere, how is it manifest that they shall goe into such a place, but by the example of Christ, who went into the place where the deade were? And how can the text which he citeth, proue it? The disciple is not aboue the master, if euery disciple should not goe into the same place, but as you holde, some to a much better, some to a worse, wheras he speaketh of one inuisible place, appointed by God for all the disciples of Christ.

And thus an end of al your caueling vpon such places of the Doctours, as were cited by me. Which how rightly I haue discharged from your manifolde wrang­ling, that the indifferent teader might more throughly perceiue, I wish him to compare your cauills with those places of mine, which you quote, where he shall see that you haue taken greater paines to pick quarrells at [Page 261] me, then vsed diligence to defend your Author, whose bookes you haue vndertaken to mainteine: beside that of euerie ten reasons that I bring against him, you haue not touched one.