The first part. That the true Church may erre.

Ar. 86 Therefore that the true Church may erre, thus he saith: The true and onely Church of Christ can neuer be voyde of God his spirite, and yet she may erre from the trueth, and be deceiued in some things. And a litle after: Wherefore the whole Churche militant consisting of men, which are all lyars, may erre all toge­ther. Ar. 88. Agayne: The true and onely Church of God, as it is decla­red before, hath no such priuilege graunted, but that she may be deceiued in some things. And there beneath: And if it may erre, and be deceiued it selfe, what man is he that neede to doubt, whe­ther it may induce any error among the people? In so much that he is bolde to say in an other place: Pur. 367 368. Of an hundred argumentes that S. Augustine vseth agaynst the Pelagians, this insultation ( that their heresie was contrarie to the publike prayers of the Church) was one of the feeblest: which tooke no holde of the Pelagians by force of truth that is in it, but by their confession and graunt. In so much agayne that a few lines after he saith to D. Allen, or rather to S. Augustine if it be truely scanned: In deede they were but sory whelpes, that could not say baffe to the bleating of such a calfe as you are, Modestly. which thinke that such a foo­lish cauill can cary credite with them that haue any cromme of brayne in their heades, to wit, The Church prayeth so, therefore it is true. Ar. 83.84. Moreouer in an other: If you meane (as it seemeth, and as the rest of the Papistes doe interprete that Article) I beleeue the Catholike Church, that is, I beleeue whatsoeuer the Church [Page 9] doth allow, to be true: I denie that it is necessarie to saluation, that a Christian man should so beleeue the Catholike Church, because the Church may erre. Agayne in the same place: But to beleeue al and euery thing that the Catholike Church by com­mon consent doth mainteine, is no Article of our fayth, and ther­fore not necessarie to saluation.

The second part. That the true Church did also erre: and that in the same poyntes as we now do erre in.

Fulkes zeale in answering for Caluine and others being in deede of his Church.

And this to doe I am moued specially by the truth of the mat­ter it selfe, but secondarily also by example of this same Fulke. who though he say that their Church may erre, yet can not his zeale abide to heare that it doth erre: or rather he saith no more, but that the true Church may erre, so, as where he may séeme to speake of a true Church distinct from their Church now, to wit, of the Fathers Church: But else when he speaketh expressely of their owne Church that now is, as he holdeth alwayes earnestly that it doth not erre, so he neuer saith so much plainely, as that it [Page 36] may erre: yea sometimes also in his zeale he breaketh out a­gainst the Fathers them selues at once and against vs: as where D. Allen said: Pur. 369.371. ‘[One of them was so impudent, to say in an open booke, that the Liturgies of the Fathers made all against the Ca­tholiks.]’ And a litle after: ‘[If their Seruice like you so well, or at least better then S. Gregories Masse: you might with more hone­stie haue coped for any one of them, then haue forged a new one of your owne: which in deede is directly repugnant to all other ;rites in the Christian world.]’ To this: I answere, saith Fulke, We haue with more honestie reformed our Liturgie according to the word of God, & example of the oldest Church, then Gre­gorie, Basill, Chrysostome (if they were theirs) or whosoeuer were authors of those Liturgies did: leauing the ancient Liturgies that were vsed in the Churche before their time, because they did not sufficiently expresse their errors & superstitiō, & forge them new of their owne contrary to the word of God. And in another place first on y ^e one side he accuseth S. Ambrose & the Church afore & in his time, Pur. 226. saying, Such superstitions crept into the Church, by e­mulation of the Paganes. Then on the other side, of his owne he saith: For auoiding of all which inconueniences, that haue risen and may rise, The vvise Church of Ge­neua. by ceremonies practised at burialls, the Churche of Geneua very wisely & godly, vseth no more ceremonies in bury­ing their dead, then are conuenient for the reuerent laying vp of the corps. Pur. 412. Againe where D. Allen saith: ‘[They be as saucie with Gods Churche, Councells, and chiefe gouernours, as we be with the Iackestrawes of Geneua.]’ See here, I pray you, the zeale of the man: You confesse hereby your selfe to be a saucie Iacke. And he addeth, that the world can testifie, that there is ( passing) grauitie and modestie in the lightest persons of all that Churche. Againe where D. Allen saith, Pur. 341. [If all Ecclesiasticall foundations ‘should returne to the founders againe, because their willes are not fulfilled,’ that then perhaps this wiued newe Cleargie might be driuen to serue in a reformed French barne.] his zeale is so great that he can not hold, but, You iest ( saith he) like a scornfull caitife, of those holy assemblees of Gods childrē in Fraunce. Pur. 203.205. Infra. ca. 12. num. So likewise by name, for Caluin & other his masters, let vs a litle behold his impacience. D. Allen toucheth Caluine for denying all commu­nion betwéene Christes members that are in this life and in the [Page 37] next. For this, Fulke saith vnto him: You haue a pleasure to spue out your pestilent poyson against that noble light of Gods Church, M. Caluine. Againe where he noteth his strange doctrine about Christes discending into hell, Fulke answereth: Pur. 61.63 Infra. ca. 1 pag. He vtte­reth his spite against Caluine: he spitteth out agaynst him moste impudent slaunders, raylings, and lyes: not satisfying him selfe with the voyce of a man, he hath borowed the tong of the diuell him selfe. Whose doctrine God him selfe, the Angels, and all the worlde doth know and testifie, to be directly contrary to these slaunders. And straight after: But because he woulde not be thought to haue spued out all his poyson, agaynst Caluine, he goulpeth vp another bowlefull of rayling & slaundering, against our Bishops, who haue not onely suffered, but also commended Caluines bookes to be read and studied of the simple Curates, affirming that they do priuily set forth by books, that which they dare not openly preach. All this and more of like sorte he hath there, and yet saith in the very same place that he doth somewhat moderate his corrupt affections. Also in an other place: Pur. 45. Without all shame or shew of truth most impudently, he faineth a contra­rietie betwene Melancthon and Caluine. O brasen face and yron forehead. With litle zeale he saith for another: Pur. 147.89. Whatsoeuer M. Iewel hath affirmed against the Papistes, he hath substantially and learnedly defended. Againe: As for that reuerend father M. Iewel, whom this arrogant Louanist calleth the English bragger, how well he hath answered his chalenge, his owne learned labors do more clearly testifie vnto the world, then that it can be blemi­shed by this sycophantes brainlesse babling. In déede he hath so well quitted him selfe, that the very reading of his answere hath turned many earnest Protestantes into earnest Catholikes, as both by the numbers and by the noblenes of the persons it is no­toriously knowen. And euen no better stuffe in Caluines Insti­tutions find they, that take the like paynes to examine them and are of iudgement to discerne, although you trust so much therein, and say: I would to God that al Papists in England would reade that booke, and pray vnfainedly, Pur. 45 [...] that God would open their eyes, that they may see the truth if it be taught therein. No syr, not so, that is not the way: There is no booke of Heresie, Iudais­me, nor Mahometisme, but it would ouerthrowe or shake the [Page 38] common sort: and therfore to reade them, and pray, that is not the way to truth, no more then to swalow poyson, and pray, is the way to get or kepe health of the body. You should rather haue exhorted men that can, to reade the auncient Fathers works, or such partes of their works as are Institutions or summes of our faith, as S. Augustines Enchiridion ad Laurentium, also, De he­resibus ad quoduultdeum, the bookes De fide ad Petrum, and De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus: Vincensis Lirinensis his generall rules, as it were preseruations against all heresies, with diuerse other: or because we speake of bookes written at this time, spe­cially and aboue all others the Councell of Trent, where it in­treateth of doctrine. But your zeale is to Caluine & his doctrine, as here you haue shewed: it is not to the Fathers and their do­ctrine, no nor to the doctrine of the whole Churche, whiche also your selfe confesse to be such. For Caluine erreth not, you say, D. Allen slaundereth and belyeth him: but the Fathers and the whole Church haue erred. Well touching Caluin, Melancthon, and such others, you shall (I trust) in time conuenient heare D. Allen answere to you for him selfe. My purpose here is onely, by this ensample of your zeale towardes your Fathers, to shewe a litle of my zeale for our Catholike Fathers, though not with such bigge wordes and lowde exclamations against you as you haue done against D. Allen, yet with suche truth and reason, as euen your selfe also, if God of his mercy wil take from you that stoute heart, may well confesse that you are fully satisfied.

Purgatorie.

But to go forwarde with you to your accusation first of Pur­gatorie, and afterward of Purgatorie fire: To proue that Pur­gatory came of the Philosophers, as al most notable heresies did, Pur. 416. Tertul. de anima cap 31.32. you alleage out of Tertullian De anima, that all Philosophers which graunted the soules immortalitie, assigned three places for the soules departed, heauen, hell, and a third place of purify­ing. This argument proueth as well, that heauen, and hell, and the Immortalitie of the soule, had their originall of [Page 48] the Philosophers. Howbeit also to report the truth, there is no word of any third place of purifying: but onely that such Philo­sophers made two sortes of Receptacles, to wit, Supernas man­siones, for Philosophers soules onely, and Inferos, for all other soules: and that about the first they did varie, for Plato placed it in aethere: Aerius in aëre: the Stoikes, circa lunam. This is all. Againe you proue out of Irenéeus, that Purgatorie came of Carpocrates the Heretike, Iren. li. 1. cap. 24. because he inuented a kinde of Pur­gatorie, and proued it out of that place of S. Mathew, Thou shalt not come forth vntil thou hast payd the vttermost farthing, Mat. 5. euen as the Papistes do. By this argument againe you will winne much honestie. Epiph. li. 1. To. 2. Haer. 27. Tertul. de anima. c. 17 Ireneus, and after him Epiphanius, as also Ter­tullian in your owne booke De anima, do write that the Carpo­cratians helde, that a man must wallow in a [...]l the filthe of sinne that is in this world, before he can come to life euerlasting: and therefore if he haue missed any sinne, his soule is reuersed into a body, and so againe, and againe, vntill he haue fulfilled all. And for this purpose Iesus (they say) vsed this Parable of agreeing with the aduersarie in the way, Matt. 5. &c. Corpus enim dicunt esse car­cerem, &c. For that prison they say is the body: and that which he saith, Thou shalt not go out thence, vntill thou hast payed the last farthing, they interprete as if the soule should be turned ouer by certayne Angels from body to body, semper quoadvs (que) in om­ni omnino operatione▪ quae in mundo est, fiat, Continually euen vntill it haue bene in all and euery acte of this world, vt nihil am­plius relinquatur (saith Epiphanius) ad nefarium quicquam fa­ciendum, so that nothing remayne that is abhominable but it is fulfilled.

Purgatorie fire.

Pur. 419.418.You goe forward and say, that they tooke Purgatorie fire of the Origenistes, and the name of Purgatorie of certayne Media­tors who about S. Augustines time would accorde Origens error with the erroneous practise of the church. For it was Origen that brought in the fire also, and that he would buylde (as the Papists do, See here ca. xij. of Christes damnation tempo­rall, according to Caluine. and as he had better reason then the Papistes haue, out of the 1. Cor. 3. This you say, but you proue it not, Origens error was that hell fire is not an euerlasting fire, but onely a temporall fire, which should in time purge not onely them that had ended their [Page 49] liues in most horrible sinnes, but also the diuels them selues, Augu. ad quod. haer. 43. Orige­nist. (as S. Augustine writeth) and so restore them to the kingdome of God: Et rursus post longissima tempora omnes, &c. And that all againe should at length returne to the same miseries: And that the felicities and myseries of men and Angels, haue alwayes had, and always shall haue, their turnes and courses after this maner. Thus he erred (you sée) about hell and heauen, and about Pur­gation of the damned: but of the Purgation of suche as die in Gods fauour, here is no word. Vnlesse you reason thus: There is no such Purgatorie as Origen and Carpocrates would haue, ergo, no Purgatorie at all. Which followeth euen as necessarily as this doth: There is no such hell nor such heauen as Origen did put, ergo, no hell at all, nor heauen at all.

Releeuing of the dead by prayer.

Now for the Reléeuing of them which else must (as we say, 1. Cor. 3. Supra. ca. 3 pa. 2. and as S. Paule saith) endure a fierie and therefore a most pain­full Purgation: you graunted in the third Chapter, that the aun­cient Fathers of the true Church, as Epiphanius & Augustine, counted Aerius an heretike, for teaching, Aug. hae. 5. Epi. hae. 75 Such absurd shiftes he is driuen vnto. That Prayer for the dead was vnprofitable. Orare, vel offerre pro mortuis oblatio­nem non oportere, he taught (saith S. Augustine) That we must not pray, nor offer oblation for the dead. But you will nowe proue, and that also Ar. 45. by the selfe same Fathers, and out of the selfe same bookes of theirs, that their doctrine rather was here­sie. For, If Aerius (say you) was an heretike for denying prayer for the dead to be profitable: why were the Heracleonites accu­sed of heresie, because they buried their dead with inuocations? Epipha. li. 1. Tom. 3. haere. 36. Epiphanius after Secundiani, and Ptolomaitae, writeth in order of Marcosiani, Colarbasiani, See Epip [...] ab. haer. 32. ad haer. 36. and Heracleonitae, saying that they were all Gnostici, (as their pre­decessors the Valentinians and Carpocratians) that is to saye, men of knowledge. Which Gnostici, all of them, did count per­fectam cognitionem, perfect knowledge or perfection to be this, if a man forsooth had wallowed himselfe like a swine in all and euery filth that is, otherwise his soule after death shoulde by the Iudge and his Minister (who were, according to their fables, two of the Angels that created the world) be imprisoned agayne [Page 50] in a bodie. This saide all the Gnostici, and I touched it also a­boue. But the later of them (after the vsuall maner of heretikes, as Epiphanius noteth) not content with their Fathers inuenti­ons, would adde somewhat also of their owne inuention. They inuented therefore a certaine Redemption, as they called it: which consisted in a fond imitation and corruption of the Sa­cramentes of Christ, but in that againe, after the manner of he­retikes, disagréeing much amongst them selues. For looke how many are the professors of this doctrine, Epiph. haer. 34. Iren. li. 1. cap. 18. so many are their Re­demptions, sayeth Ireneus, and out of him Epiphanius spea­king of the Marcosians. Some did it by way of a mariage. ‘ Some as it were at Baptisme, one sort by water, an other sorte by a mixture of oile and water, both which sortes did after anoint the partie with balme: and all, with certaine fond words according to the fables of their heresies. Alij verò haec anima auersantes, &c. But some other woulde none of all these, saying, that the myste­rie of the vnspeakeable and inuisible power, ought not to bee celebrated in visible and corruptible creatures. Esse autem perfec­tam redemptionem, ipsam cognitionem inenarabilis magnitudi­nis. But that the very knowledge of the vnspeakeable maiestie, was perfect Redemption. Epiph. haer. 36. After y ^e foresaide Marcus, came Hera­cleon, taking his occasiō of Marcus, yet not redeeming any more as he did, but otherwise, redimens videlicet ad finem vitae eos, &c. at the houre of their death he redeemed his followers: powring on the heade of the partie, eyther oyle mingled with water, or baulme & water (such againe was the vnitie of these Heracleo­nites) together with Marcus his madde inuocations, and some others: All this to this end, that by vertue of such anointing and such Inuocations, his body being lefte here, & his Anima, Soule, being cast of, apud Opificē, where the Angel or God Creator is, his Interior homo, Inwarde man, might inuisibly passe the said Creator & them that are beneath & about him, & so scape vp to his proper place aboue all: specially, if withal he could remember to say to the Creator & those other powers, as Heracleon had instructed him.’ The wordes are to be séen in Epiphanius, who at length concludeth al this geare, & saith: ‘Et de Redemptione quidē haec sunt quae ad nos deuenerunt, And concerning the redempti­on, this is all that hath come to my knowledge.’

[Page 51]Now this forsooth maketh much against our Solemnization of Mariage, much also against our Baptisme or baptizing with water. And euen as muche against our oyle in Baptisme, or Chrisme made of oyle and baulme, after Baptisme: as much also against our Anealing at the houre of death, and our prayers for men after their death: howbeit of praying for the dead in all this was neuer a worde, neyther in it selfe, nor in any lyke­nesse of it, vnlesse you will therevnto liken those wordes that the Heracleonites were taught to say after their death, I know not to whom, that they myght goe inuisible. And yet you doe so triumph in the Heracleonites, that you are vp with them a­gainst vs, in moe places also, saying: The Heracleonites (as Au­gustine witnesseth) came yet a step more towardes the Papistes: Pur. 417. for they would Redeeme their dead after a new manner, namely by oyle, balme, water, and inuocations saide ouer their heades in the Hebrew tongue. And againe: Of the Heracleonites you lear­ned to anoint men at the point of death, with oyle, and balme, Ar. 22. and to cast water vpon dead men, with Inuocations. Epiphani. lib. 1. Tom. 3. Haeres. 36. Euen as of the foresaide heretikes wée learned to Baptize men, and to marrie men. Who séeth not ra­ther, that those heretikes tooke their rites of the Catholike rites, with such mutation as they thought good, so as nowe the Calui­nistes haue made them out of our Masse, a Communion of bread onely and wine.

But if the Heracleonites fayle you, Pur. 417. Montanus had in all poyntes the opinion of the Papistes. All those poyntes I did put in your wordes, in the thirde Chapter. But how doe you nowe proue the same? Because Tertullian was a Montanist: Supra. ca. 3. pa. 2. diui. 4 and he hath all these poyntes in his Bookes that he made be­ing a Montanist, speciallye in hys Booke De anima, where also he telleth a Myracle that confyrmeth prayers to profite the deade: this is all your proofe. But I praye you syr, is all Montanisme, that Tertullian hath in his Booke De anima, and in so many other Bookes which he wrote beyng a Monta­nist? then what article of our Créede almost is not Montanisme? Euen in those fewe lynes that you cite, he hath Immortalitie of the soule, & Resurrection of the flesh, and that which is his scope in the same place, to wit, (for you séeme not to vnderstande it) [Page 52] the soules suffering in her betweene this and the Resurrection. If otherwise therefore, some be trueth, though some other bée Montanisme, what shoulde you haue done but to looke in Epi­phanius, in Augustine, and such others, what were the heresies of Montanus: and not finding prayer for the dead amongst them, to haue refrained your rashnes.

You knew this well inough, & therfore notwithstanding your bragges to proue it, &c. you confesse y ^t it is but your owne lyght suspicion, Pur. 417. saying: And therfore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes added (to y ^e abuse in the Church afore) also prayers for the spirites of them that were dead, wherof Ter­tullian maketh mētion in his bookes De Castitate & De Mono­gamia, which were both written to heretikes of his secte, and by those prayers laboureth to proue (his Montanisme, to wit) that Second mariages are not lawfull. And againe: And therefore it may well be, Pur. 263. that all that Tertullian speaketh of prayers and ob­lations for the dead, was onely in the conuenticles of the Monta­nistes. All in Tert. is Montanisme, that Cypr. doth not mention. And this coniecture (you say) seemeth the more probable, (not, because it is by any imputed to Montanus, but) because Cyprian (which was afterward a Catholike Byshop in the same Citie, where Tertullian some time had lyued) maketh no men­tion of prayers for the deade. A goodly cause: and yet in déede Cyprian maketh such mention thereof, as D. Allen alleageth him, Pur. 239. Infra. pag. that your selfe doe say there: This place of Cyprian hath more collour, but yet not so cleare for Purgatorie as M. Allen would seeme to make it. And when you haue all done, you sticke fast in the lyme. But this by the waye. Againe you vtter your suspition, Pur. 419. saying: Finally it appeareth that the faithfull in Ter­tullians time, &c. allowed no Prayers for the dead. And yet of this, least for lacke of courage so great a verse shoulde geue vs so much as a fillip, though you haue bene so vncertaine in your premisses, you must néedes be certaine in your conclusion not­withstanding, and say to vs: Therefore Aerius was not the first that helde our opinion (although Epiphanius and Augustine say it neuer so muche) but Montanus before him was the first that helde your opinion throughly, against the Catholikes of his time.

Oblations for the dead.

And so much of prayers for the dead. But because Aerius de­nied not onely the profite of them, but also of oblations for the dead, and was no lesse for that also condemned of the Church, you must take paynes to quit him of that heresie likewise, and to charge the Church rather that condemned him, yea & the Church long before he was borne. Thus then you say, speaking of the times of Tertullian & Montanus before him: Pur. 417.418.419. The Church then had oblations for the dead by peruerse emulation of the Gentils, and yet they were but oblations of thanks giuing. You go about to proue it a litle after, saying: And that the practise of the Chur­che for oblations for the dead at the yerely day of their death, were taken from the Gentiles, it appeareth by this that Tertullian counteth them of all one origen (to witte, of the Apostles tradi­tion) with the oblations pro Natalitijs, that is, for the birth days. And if this be not inough, Beatus Rhemanus (you say) a Papist, and a great antiquary, doth confesse it, affirming that by the Ca­nons of the Nicene Councell and other Councels, whiche he hath seene in Libraries, those oblations pro Natalitijs, with other su­perstitions, that Tertullian fathereth vpon tradition of the Apo­stles, were abrogated. After this you be bolde to crowe agaynst those auncient times, and to say amongst many other corruptions which they tooke of the Gentiles and Heretikes. So they tooke oblations for the dayes of death and birth of the Gentiles.

He is a poore antiquarie, which knoweth not what Natalitia were in olde time, and still are, to wit, the dayes of Martyrs, Natalitia. so called, because they were then after many sore pangs deliuered out of their mother the militant Churches wombe, and borne vnto the life & ioy of the world to come. Which mother of theirs and ours vsed therfore alwayes, and stil vseth, Ioan. 6. for ioy that a man is borne to heauen, to offer from yere to yere vpon the dayes of their Martyrdome, the oblation or sacrifice of the Altar. For any other of her children she offereth also the same oblation vpon the day of his death, and so forth vpon his yeres Mindeday, yere by yere, but not with such ioy, but rather mourning with them, and for them, to get them comfort, knowing that though they also be borne into the worlde to come, yet, it may be, crying for a time as all children into this world, and not laughing by and by [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] as the glorious Martyrs. And these two sortes are the oblations that Tertullian speaketh of, saying: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs, Tertul. de Coro. mil. Cypr. Epi. 37.34. anima die facimus: We make oblations for the dead, and for the byrthes (of Martyrs) vpon their yeres day. S. Cyprian likewise: We celebrate the passions and dayes of Mar­tyrs with an yerely commemoracion. We celebrate oblations and sacrifices for their commemorations. And in See Molanus de Martyrolo­g [...] ca. xv. after Martyrol. v­suardi. Aug. in ps. 118. in. res. all Martyrologies you may sée them called Natalitia, or, Natales. S. Paulinus hath left verses that he wrote ten yeres together vpon the Natalis of S. Felix. ‘ S. Augustine shewing that the olde persecutors could not hurt the Church, but rather that they did much good agaynst their willes, amongst other vtilities, as that the whole earth is clad in purple by the bloud of Martyrs: Heauen is all in flowers by the garlandes of Martyrs: Churches are decked with the Relikes of Martyrs: Often cures are done by the merites of Martyrs, hath also to our purpose, and saith: Insignita sunt tem­pora Natalitijs Martyrum, Times are notably marked with the birthdayes of Martyrs. Orig. li. 3. in Iob. Finally Origen saith expresly (& the place is often alleaged by your selfe) Nos itaque non natiuitatis, &c. We do not celebrate the day of birth ( into this world) conside­ring that it is the entrie into dolours and temptations: but we celebrate the day of death, as being the laying off of all dolours, and profligation of all temptations.’

Pamel. in Cyp. ep. 34And therefore it litle forceth what your antiquarie saith a­gainst antiquitie, of whom also for so saying Pamelius a farre better antiquarie then he, saith thus: ‘Quod quàm sinistrè detor­queat Rhenanus ad dies natalitios Ethnicorum, nemo ignorare debet, &c. Rhenanus turneth this ( place of Tertullian) from the right meaning very vntowardly, to the byrthdayes of the Gentiles.’ Howbeit in my iudgement Rhenanus there might be better construed, not to say that the oblations of Christians were euer for their owne birthdayes, but that vpon the byrthdayes of the Martyrs which the Church did celebrate with the solemne oblations of the Altar, many of the people kept drunken fea­sting, as the Gentiles did, euery one vpon his proper byrthday: Which drunken vtas the Church was fayne to tolerate for a time, but afterwarde the Canons of the Nicene Councell, and others following did forbid it, and chaunge it into almes. If [Page 55] you could shewe those Canons, we might be more certayne of his meaning. Playne it is, that he speaketh very confusely of birthdayes: And playne agayne it is, that suche rioting was v­sed of some in Paulinus (whom he there citeth) and S. Augu­stines times, long after the Nicene Councell. See Rhen [...] himselfe [...] Tert. ad M [...]tyres, num. [...] And agayne most sure it is, that the Church alwayes from the beginning hath vsed, and no Councell euer did forbid the kéeping of the Martyrs birth­dayes with oblations of the Altar. Finally Rhenanus in those annotations is full of scapes & ouersightes (and noted according­ly by the learned of this time, very much) though no yll meaning.

Beeres to cary home the Corpses.

One error more you charge vs withall about the dead, tou­ching their bodies, as the former were touching their soules, Ar. 22. George the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, inuented Beres to cary dead corpses, charging all men to vse them for his owne aduaun­tage: as do you Papistes your Bearing clothes, and other toyes for funerall pompes, Epiph. li. 3. tom. 1. haer. 76. Epiphanius doth not say, that George inuented Beres, but that he deuised to haue them in a certayne number. His wordes are these, to shewe the miserable couetousnes of that man: ‘No trade almost so base, no thing so meane, whereof he sought not gayne. For, so muche as Beres for the dead, he deuised to make the number of thē certayn, & without those that he ordeined, no corps of the dead, specially of strangers, was buried: non propter hospitalitatem, not for any charitie towards strangers, but (as I haue said) for lucres sake. For if any buried a corps otherwise, he came in daunger. Now if this or the like miserablenes be in any Bishop of ours or yours, ey­ther to racke his people, or to vsurpe the liuing of his Cleargie, what is that agaynst Béeres, or Bearing clothes, or comely pompe of funerals, or against the Church that vseth them, speci­ally your selfe also commending in your Geneua Church, Pur. 22 [...] suche Ceremonies as are conuenient for the reuerent laying vp of the Corps?’ vnlesse you thinke it much for the Church to reape their Carnalia, to whom she soweth Spiritualia: or would prouide for your selfe a Béere & Bearing clothes against you shal be buried, 1. Cor. 9 rather then to pay the common duties to your parish Church.

Thus haue I folowed you through all the errors common to vs with the auncient true Church, taken (as you saye) of the [Page 56] Gentiles or of Heretikes: but (as I haue playnly shewed) not any one of them so nor so. What more you haue of them, belon­geth to the eyght and ninth Chapters, where I haue promised to answere all your testimonies out of Scripture and others, about any matter to day in controuersie▪ and thither I referre the Rea­der for the last error also about the Popes Superioritie, hauing nothing here to be answered, because though you say, that the auncient Church had that error also, yet you do not say, that it tooke it of the Gentiles or of any Heretikes.

The first part. How he excepteth by Onely Scripture, against all other Euidences in the controuersies that are betwene vs.

The second part. Beeing told that the question betwene vs is not (as he maketh it) of the Scriptures authoritie, but of the meaning: howe there likewise against all the Expositors he maketh the same exception of Only Scripture, requiring also Scrip­ture to be expounded by Scripture.

Now after all this froth of words, let vs sée him come once to the poynt, & report him self the substance of our matter. These be his owne words: But the controuersie is not (M. Allen fayth) of the authoritie of the Scriptures in this matter, Pur. 363, but of the true [Page 96] meaning of them, which it is more like that they (the Doctors) being such men, then we so farre inferior to them, should know. And what saith he therevnto? I answere, saith he, and yet not one worde there to the question. Else where he saith therevnto, (as I will report anone his words) that also the meaning of y ^e Scrip­tures must be searched out of the Scriptures onely. Well syr, but whencesoeuer and wheresoeuer it must be searched, who is more like to finde it, the Doctors, or you? and so, neither that which you saye in other places, answereth the question. But in this place (reade it who list) your answere is quite & cleane frō the questiō, which was, Whether be more like to know the true meaning of the Scriptures, the Doctors, or you? And yet you pype vp the triumph there and say: Thus haue these Heretikes no ground of their heresie: but shift from the word of Scripture to Tradition, from Tradition to the meaning of Scripture, from the plaine meaning of Scripture to the opinions of men. Yea and he counteth him selfe and his companies happie for such blinde presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures onely out of the Scriptures without the commentaries of the Doctors, (but not also) I trow, without the Commentaries of Caluine and such like companions) thus he saith: Pur. 407. And happy be those, which not regarding the streames of waters that runne through the vaynes of earth, but seeking to the onely fountayne of hea­uenly truth, conteined in the holy Scriptures, haue certaine com­fort of saluation. Pur. 285. And againe to the same purpose: Surely as the Sunne is not obscured with the dust that a Cock casteth vp when he scrapeth on the dunghill: The Doctors vvritings a dunghill. no more is the Sonne of righteous­nesse, or the light of his holy worde, darkened by all the myste of mens deuises, which Allen, or his complices can rayse out of the whole heape of superstition and error, to deface the glory of his Church. The worde of the Lord is a light vnto our steppes, and therefore we will not walke in the darknes of mens traditions. Our doctrine shall one day be tried before God, and therefore we make no account how we be iudged by mans day. 1. Cor. 4. (So properly he vttereth his presumption in the words that the Apostle clene contrarie did speake in excéeding great feare.) It foloweth: Your way is your owne way, & not the way of the Lord: and because you take another way vnto saluation then the onely right waye [Page 97] Iesus Christ, therfore by his owne sentence, you are al theeues and murderers. Hath any séene a man so drunken, so blinded, with pride?

Well then: in the other place, of searching the meaning out of the Scriptures them selues alone, and neglecting the receaued Expositors, what saieth he? Whether the old Doctors be more like to vnderstand the Scriptures then the Protestāts: Pur. 434. I haue an­swered before, we will make no comparison with them. Modestly spoken, a man would thinke: but what followeth? Neither will we chalenge the likelihood to vs, neither will we leaue it to them. I mary, hold your owne we pray you. And why so? For whether soeuer we doe, we shall be neuer the more certaine of the trueth. You say true, for so much as concerneth your selues. For in déede no certaintie of trueth, but most certaine certaintie of error, in your vnderstanding. But in what so euer the Doctors doe agrée, who so expoundeth the Scripture vnto that, shall be euer most certaine of the truth (which is ynough) though not alwayes cer­taine of that same very places meaning, as in the sixt Chapter I declared more at large. Forth now, a Gods name: Supra. cap. 6. par. 2. But this will we set downe as a most certaine principle, that no man can vn­derstand the Scriptures, but by the same Spirite by which they were written. The meaning of some place one may attaine vnto, which hath not that Spirit: but to vnderstand them alwayes a­gréeably to the truth, can not be without that same Spirit. Forth againe: What then? shall we arrogate the Spirit as proper to vs, and denye it to them? God forbid. They had their measure of Gods spirit, and so haue we. Hereof ariseth an obiection. How then? is the Spirit of God contrarie to it selfe, because they and we agree not in all thinges? He answereth, God forbid. Cyprian and Cornelius were both endued with Gods Spirit, yet they agre­ed not both in one interpretation nor iudgement of the scripture. Yea Syr, Cyprian as he was of Cornelius his Spirit, so was he likewise of Cornelius his iudgement, implicitè as we tearme it, though explicite he were of an other, of an erronius iudgemēt, and that according to his owne humane spirit, and not according to Gods Spirit. As at this day likewise, and alwayes, whensoe­uer any Catholike man of ignoraunce erreth expressely, yet not­withstanding in effect he is of the trueth with the other Catho­likes [Page 98] which erre not, because he quietly continueth in vnitie with them, nor doth not obstinatly holde his owne error against them. Now whether the case be so betwene the olde Doctors and you, briefly and manifestly it is declared by this, that neither you at this time will be refourmed by them, nor they in their time would be refourmed by your forefathers, Aerius, Iouinia­nus, and such like.

But now that you haue abrogated the vnderstanding of the Scriptures from Gods spirite both in the Doctors and in your selues, say on, and tell vs your aduise: What then? there remay­neth but this seconde principle as certayne as the first, That the Spirite of God hath a meaning in the Scriptures, which is not to be sought out of the Scriptures in the opinions of deceiuable men, but only in the Scriptures, where is nothing but the spirite of truth. No syr, why? suppose those men were the Apostles them selues, or any other hauing the same spirite of trueth that the Apostles first had, but of that ynough before: foorth therefore: Therefore that the spirite may declare his owne meaning, Ar. 86. one place of Scripture must be expounded by an other, (for the hard places of Scripture must be opened by easie places) all other or­dinary meanes and helpes, of wit, learning, knowledge of tongs, diligence in hearing, reading, and praying, are subordinate, and seruing to this search and triall. And is this way so sure and cer­tayne? I mary. For who soeuer obserueth this search and triall most precisely, shall come to the knowledge of the trueth most certaynly. And may he not trust an other which hath so precise­ly obserued it? as for example, the Protestantes, me thinkes, as your selfe, or M. Caluine, &c. but I crie you mercy, you meant not them. Well then, may he not trust the olde Fathers therein? A comfortable doctrine for the ignorant, for­sooth▪ or did not they obserue it diligently? No: for who so euer is negligent in this search and tryall, though he haue other­wise neuer so many and excellent graces and giftes, may easily be deceiued, yea (you speake nowe a great worde) euen when he thinketh he followeth the authoritie of the Scriptures. Which (search) if the auncient Fathers had alwayes followed, they should not so lightly haue passed ouer some thinges (as to con­demne the Protestantes in Aerius and Vigilantius, &c.) and o­ther thinges so slenderly haue mainteined, (as the doctrine of [Page 99] the Papistes.)

Well then, I sée, all is in a mans owne diligence, to trust no man nor men, but to reade the Scriptures, conferre the places, and so gather the meaning by him selfe: this is your most certen way. I must therefore tell you a litle of our diligence therin, that you may certifie vs whether it be ynough, or no. and the rather because you exhort our master D. Allen, and say to him: Pur. 9. Trye the rule of the Protestantes, and search the worde of God in the holy Scriptures, and then vndoubtedly you shall finde the trueth, and the Church also that is the pillar of trueth. And againe, Ar. 62. Who haue the trueth, you must search in the worde of trueth, desiring the spirite of trueth, that you may vnderstande and beleeue the trueth: and so without doubt you shall come to the knowledge of the trueth, and of the Churche of God whiche is the pillar of truth. So it is then good syr: In this Seminarie of English di­uines vnder the gouernement of D. Allen, mainteined by his ho­lines for the saluation of our countrey (as he mainteineth the like for Germanie also, for Bohemia, and Students of Polonia, The Popes Se­minarie for England. Suetia, Slauonia, Hungaria, &c. yea for the Gréekes likewise, yea also for the Hebrues) we haue such exercise in the scriptures, that we reade ouer y ^e old Testament, in euery thrée yeres, twelue times, one of which times hath ioyned with it an examinatiō by conferēce from Chapter to Chapter, and from verse to verse. The new Testament we reade ouer in the same thrée yeres, sixtéene times, with a treble examinatiō of the same sort. And not cōtent with those examinations, we afterwards write moreouer in pa­per bookes, & lay together al the sentences that belong to the con­trouersies of this time, euery one in his place. And without all vanitie, to speake one word of my selfe, after many yeres studie afore after the maner of Englād (as many of your owne side can beare me witnesse) I haue since then folowed this foresaid trade nine yeres. This is partly our diligence in the scriptures, besides much other exercise both in the same and in all the studie of diui­nitie. What more diligence would you haue vs vse? this is the principall, and (as you make it) all in all. All other helpes you counte but subordinate and seruing vnto this. And yet in them also, I dare saye, if you knewe vs, you woulde al­lowe vs for sufficient at the leaste: You maye, by the [Page 100] trace of God, ere it be long, haue some taste of vs therein, when one of vs shall set forth a booke to shew to the world, that the He­brew and Gréeke textes, in nothing make for you against vs, and in very many things make for vs against you much more plain­ly, then our vulgar Latine text. Now then, how much more cer­taine of the trueth be we, then you, also by your owne rule, be­cause your diligence herein is nothing comparable: but special­ly, because together with this rule we vse the expositiōs that you renounce, of the auncient Fathers, who for such conference of places, and all other studie of the Scriptures, were pearlesse.

¶The third part. What he meaneth by his Onely Scripture: and that thereby he excepteth also against Scripture it selfe.

Thus haue we heard this Protestant call for expresse Scrip­ture in all things, yea also in the expounding of Scripture. Now, that he séeme not too straight and rigorous in his exception, he will tell vs what he meaneth therby, as it were to geue vs more scope, but in déed (as we shall heare soone after) to shut vs straigh­ter vp, and to except also against Scripture it selfe, vnlesse it be so plaine and euident for vs, that by no subteltie of theirs they may auoide it.

Concerning the former, thus he saith: When we require ex­presse Scripture for euery controuersie, we doe not require that euery thing should be named in Scripture, but necessarily conclu­ded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures and purpose of the holy Ghost in them. Then on the other side, he almost repenteth himselfe againe for graunting so much, and saieth: And yet we may say, Pur. 438. it is a great preiudice against your Purgatorie and pray­er, that it is not so much as once named in the Scriptures. Againe, If the holy Ghost had euer allowed Prayer for the deade, he would once at the least haue vttered the same plainely, in holy Canonicall Scriptures. Pur. 452. Canonicall he saith, to except against the very meaning of it also, which he séeth in the bookes of the Ma­chabées: rather shall that Canonicall Scripture not be Canoni­call, for so plainely naming that which the eares of the Prote­stantes can not abide.

[Page 101]Well, in the other Canonicall Scriptures the name is not, and that is a great preiudice against vs. But he will be fauoura­ble vnto vs, a great preiudice shal not make him geue iudgement against vs, if at least The thing it selfe be taught or can be pro­ued by the Scriptures. Yet againe he remembreth him selfe, Pur. 452. that D. Allen hath alleaged many Scriptures for that thing, and the old Fathers likewise before him: and therefore to tye vs yet straighter with another exception, he said here a little afore, But we require that euery thing be necessarily concluded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures. And againe he saith, speaking of D. Allen: See the confidence of the man, he is sure, Pur. 364. that if we were examined of our conscience, what tryall of this doubt we would wish, there is none we could name, but his cause might well abide it. Wherevnto he answereth, saying: Why M. Allen, we haue testified of our conscience long agoe, that the onely authoritie of Gods word written, shall satisfie vs, as well in this as in all other matters. If you were able we should haue heard before this time some sentence of Scripture, to maintaine prayer and sacrifice for the dead. (Why? in the third Chapter here you confessed that you haue heard of him diuerse sentences, and not of him alone, Supra. pag. 19. but al­so of the Fathers of the true Churche. Yea but now saieth he, I adde my exception, and say therfore, some sentence) not standing vpon voluntarie collection, but either in plaine wordes or neces­sarie conclusion. For there is nothing that we are bound to know, nothing that we are bound to doe, but either in expresse wordes, or in necessarie collection (which is as good as expresse wordes) it is set forth in the holy Scriptures. Againe, Pur. 452. All truth may be pro­ued by Scripture, either in plaine wordes, or by necessarie conclu­sion, which is all one. And againe: Pur. 189. There is For example: your ovvne heresie. no heresie so ab­surd, which Satā putteth into the head of wicked men, but it may finde some sound of words in so many Bookes of the holy scrip­tures, that by peruerse wittes may be wrested vnto it. But the doc­trine of Gods trueth and all articles of our beliefe, are plainely taught in the Scripture, either by manifest wordes, or by necessary conclusion and argument, which by no subtiltie of Satan or his instrumentes, may be auoided or deluded. And this is the diffe­rence betweene heresie and truth, when they both appeale to the authoritie of Scripture. Which difference as it may be found in al [Page 102] heresies, so in none more notably, then in this error of Purgatory. Consider what texts of holy Scripture are alleaged against it, rather. for it, & you shall see they can not bring one, out of which any necessary argu­ment may be framed to proue their cause, or which hath not by learned interpretors of the olde time bene otherwise expounded then of their cause. Pur. 176. Yea and more then that, The worde of God doth neither expresly, nor by any probable collection allow it, but manifestly condemne it. Pur. 185. Againe, He could not with any semely colour establish purgatorie, by the authoritie of the Scrip­ture, the onely testimonie of Gods word and will reueiled, and confirmed by his holy Spirite. The Machabées to be euen so con­firmed as well as the other bookes, he can neuer auoyde, and in effect he graunteth, as I shall note in the eleuenth Chapter a­mongst his contradictions. Which is sufficient, I trow, to make at the least a séemely colour, and a probable collection: but in déede also a conclusion so necessary, that he can neuer answere it, but by shaking the authoritie of all the Canonicall Scriptures, in derogating from their confirmation which yet him selfe doth attribute to the holy Spirite.

The fourth part. What great promises he maketh to bring most euident Scrip­ture against vs, and also by Scripture to proue his sence of the Scripture: Triumphing also before the victorie, & saying, that we dare not be tried by Scripture, but reiect the Scriptures. Wherevpon a fourefold offer is made vnto him.

Now that we haue séene howe precise he is with vs, to admit 1(1) no euidence that we alleage, but Scripture onely, both in all controuersies, and also in the exposition of Scripture: and againe 2(2) no Scripture, which maketh so playnly with vs, that he can not auoyde it but by denying it to be Canonical, though he graūt it to haue the confirmation of the same true Church, which mo­ueth him, as the holy Ghost, to receiue the other Scriptures for Canonicall: and againe (3) no Scripture that he confesseth to be 3 Canonicall, vnlesse it make so expresly, so playnly, so manifestly, and so necessarily with vs, that it can not by any suttletie be a­uoyded. It were to be séene nowe on the other side, what Scrip­tures he alleageth against vs, whether he obserue him selfe the [Page 103] law that he so rigorously prescribeth to vs, whether his Scrip­tures be so playne, so manifest, so euident, that by no sutteltie they can be auoyded. But that we shall sée in the next Chapter: no nede of sutteltie, I assure you, to auoyde or delude them, so friuolous are his allegations, that with al facilitie and truth we shall answere them. Here in the meane time, in the ende of this Chapter, I will onely lay forth his great promises aforehande, and so come orderly to the matter.

And to omit, if he should haue to do with all the old and newe heresies, what manifest & necessary confutations he would frame against them all and euery one, out of the Scriptures alone, ha­uing fréely afore them renounced al other probations, according to his former sayings here, that all truth, and, all articles of our beliefe are playnly taught in the Scripture, and may be so proued by Scripture, & that there is nothing that we are bound to know, nothing that we are bound to do, but it is so set forth in the scrip­tures: His great pro­mises. I will charge him no more but with his promise that he maketh of so confuting vs by playne Scriptures, notwithstan­ding that all other euidences make for vs in such sort as he hath already confessed. Thus he saith: Pur. 187. And that which I haue to saye in confutation of your heresie, shall be no worse then the very word of God it selfe, which is better then the consent of all the world against it. And againe: Pur. 30. I am one of the least of Gods Mi­nisters, yet by his grace and authoritie of his holy word, I shal be able to ouerthrow both this and all other Babilonicall bulwarks that are cast vp by Satan & all his instruments for the defence of Popish heresie against the truth of God. And neither the myst of mens inuētions (which you cal the light of Apostolike tradition) shall be able to darken the truth of the Gospell: nor the errors of mortall men (which you terme the force of Gods trueth) shall beare downe the authoritie of Gods holy spirite. Againe: Pur. 12. We be able to shew manifest euidence that our aduersaries doctrine is cleane contrarie to the Scriptures of God. Againe: Ar. 3. We affirme that the Apostles taught none other faith in stead of true Chri­stianitie, but that which we hold, as we are ready to proue by the word of God. Againe: I can proue by S. Paules writings, Ar. 59. that in all articles of faith, he taught the same which we beleeue. And for triall of this, because it would require a whole volume, [Page 104] if I should proue euery perticular article, wherein we dissent from you Papistes: If you will name an article (in the next Chapter your selfe shall name ynowe. Yet, if you will, let it be this: that Antichrist is not one certaine person, and that the Churches flée­ing into the wildernesse at his comming, is to become inuisible to the world: and that the beginning of that comming and fleing, should be so soone after Christes passion: the continuaunce, so ma­ny ages: the end, so long before Christes second cōming.) where­in we agree not with S. Paule, If I be not able to proue that we agree with him in the meaning thereof, I will reuoke that article and agree with you therein. Yea and also to proue his owne meaning, and to disproue our meaning, when we both alleage Scriptures, he will séeke, as he required of vs, to nothing like­wise but Scripture it selfe. For the meaning of the worde (he saith) you should beleeue vs rather then the Papistes, because our groundes and proues are better then theirs: or els we require not to be beleeued better then they. And there againe: If you bring out a false sense, we beleeue you not, because we knowe it to be false, and are able to proue by the word of God, that it is contra­rie to the meaning of the holy Ghost.

His triumph­ing in lying.These are his worthie promises. Of which he hath béen so li­berall, belike, because he knewe that we dare not once appeare, when Scriptures be alleaged by the Protestantes. For such are his wordes. Pur. 380. We can shewe no cause in the world (you say) why wee neede in any one point of controuersie depart from your Church. Yet M. Allen, this one cause shall serue for all, because your Church is departed from the truth of Gods word, and dare not abide the tryall thereof, but will sitte like a proude dame in a Chaire, Ar. 28. and controll the Scriptures. Againe: The Popish Church can by no reason chalenge Apostles, Euangelistes, and Prophets, seeing she refuseth to be tried by their doctrine vttered in their writinges. Againe: The spouse of Christ, heareth the voice of Christ, Ar. 99.6. and is ruled thereby. But the Romish Church will in no wise be ruled Onely by the voyce of Christ: therefore she is not the Spouse of Christ.

Where, by his foysting in of the worde (Onely) in the Minor, we may note the cause that moueth him to say, that our Churche refuseth the Scriptures: as if he should say, that we refuse faith, [Page 105] because we refuse only faith: or that any man refuseth his owne best euidence, because he will not at the instance of his aduersa­rie renounce all his other euidences, be they neuer so many, ne­uer so good, neuer so well tried and so much vsed by his aunce­tors, & also most agreable, euery one of them, to his foresaid best euidence. Ar. 85.

He saith moreouer, She hath nothing lesse then the true sense of Gods word, which submitteth the same to her owne iudgemēt. Ar. 107. Againe: The Popish Church so manifestly dissenteth from the word of truth, that she dare not be iudged thereby, but most blas­phemously submitteth the same to her owne iudgement. Againe, In the Popish Church Gods word is made subiect to mens deter­minations and authorities. And againe, Pur. 219. By which it is manifest that you do reiect the whole authoritie of all the Canonicall Scriptures: when you affirme that no booke of holy Scripture is Canonicall, but so farre foorth as your Church will allowe it. Moreouer when you will not admit any sense of the Scripture, but such as your Church will allow.

Here are two other causes of the same againe: As if he would say, that the Apostles in their time, or the Church then, Note vvhiche is this Popishe Church. submitted and made subiect the Scriptures to men, most blasphemously, and onely of their owne will, 2. Pet. 3. because they tooke vpon them to iudge of the true sense: and namely S. Peter, for saying, that the vnlearned (him selfe being but a fisherman) and the vnstable, do misconster S. Paules Epistles, sicut & caeteras Scripturas, as also the other Scriptures, to their owne damnation. And againe, as though the same Apostles, and the Church after them, manifestly reiected the whole authoritie of all the Canonicall Scriptures, Canonicall. & did al only of their owne will, because they made a Canon or Ca­nons (as all the lawes of the Church are called Canons) wherof the saide Scriptures were and are called Canonicall, whervpon himselfe also counteth them as confirmed by the holy Ghost.

Well, for these goodly causes he is bold to say, that the Church (of which Christ said generally, If he will not heare the Church, Mat. 18. count him for an heathen and a publican) refuseth and reiecteth the Scriptures. And againe to D. Allen: Pur. 438. As for the euident word of God, you shame not to boast of that to be your triall, which you dare as well eate a fagot as abide the iudgement of it, in any [Page 106] lawfull conference or disputation. Your great belwethers and bi­shops declared before the whole world in the conferēce of West­minster, what they durst abide; when they came to handstrokes. It is a gay matter for such a chattering Pye, as you are, to make a fond florish a farre off in words, to please your patrons and ex­hibitioners: it is an other thing to stand to the proofe in deede. And againe to him: Pur. 346. Where as you wish that Bedes historie were made familiar vnto all English men, they were better to consider the word of God and the historie of the Actes of the Apostles: Which if you durst abide the triall thereof, you would exhort men to reade it, at least wise that vnderstand Latin. And if you were as zelous to set forth the glory of God, as you are to main­teine your owne traditions, one or other of you, which haue so long found fault with our translations of the Scriptures, would haue taken paynes to translate them truely your selues, as well as to translate Bedes booke.

You say the disputation at Westminster Anno 1. Elizab. was before the whole world, as one that care not what you say, which you declare again in speaking of D. Allens exhibitioners, and his pleasing of them, a thing wherof you know nothing, nor (as I think) no body els, vnles some body may know that which is not. He is rather him selfe the Exhibitioner of our whole countrey (like an other Ioseph) and might be yours also, if you were happy. How much more iustly then may we say, that the Councell of Trent was holden before the whole world? And what conference will you admitte for lawfull on our part, when as you refused to come to that assembly at Trent, béeing yet so earnestly, so safely, and so honorably inuited thither, as the Safeconduites extant in the Actes of the Councell do witnesse, together with the very experience also of those fewe petites of Germanie that came thither? Or what conference shall on your parte be thought iniquous and vniust towardes vs, when you shame not to extoll that mocke conference of Westminster?

A fourefolde offer.Well, because you chalenge vs to a disputation, and are suffe­red to set it forth in print, heare what I will say vnto you: The Councell of Trent counted you their subiectes as muche as you counte vs the subiectes of Englande, and the state there, is of all Catholike Princes graunted to be farre preeminent. Do [Page 107] you therefore procure vs a safeconduite from the Courte in 1 suche fourme as the Councell gaue it to you, and certayne of vs will in the name of God come in, be the daunger to our liues otherwise neuer so great, and for the glory of God in the victorie of his trueth, we will ioyne with you in any con­ference that shall be prescribed according to the common lawes of a Conference. Sée in my .xix. Demaunde, which is of Kinges, what I said to this effect before I knew of this your chalenge. Sée likewise of the same in my first Demaund, which is of olde Conference at Carthage betwixte the Catholikes and the Do­natistes, about the true Churche which the Scriptures com­mende vnto vs: Whereof I shall haue occasion to say more in the tenth Chapter.

If to reiect this offer, the Gouernours by your procurement, or 2 of their owne mindes will stand vpon their poyntes, wheras we séeing the cause is Gods cause, are content not to stand vpon our liues, to saue your soules, and to redéeme the vnmercifull vexa­tion and intollerable persecution of our brethren ouer all that Realme, whom your Bishops and other Commissioners do op­pose with heauy yrons and bouchers axes sorer then you can op­pose vs or the learned of them with Scriptures: Do you syr, at the least wise for your owne credits sake, take your pen in hand, and ioyne with me vpon that same Collatio Carthaginensis, in such maner as I haue briefly required in my said first Demaund.

Or if you dare not do that neither for al your crakes, thirdly I 3 require you to send to vs some of your fellows or schollers, such as will behaue them selues quietly and modestly, other safecon­duite they shall not néede: as diuers of your side haue already at sundry times, partely of their owne heades, partely at their priuate friendes motion, come hither, and founde all safe and sure for their persons, and not one of them but he was (thankes be to God) throughly satisfied by our conference, and namely by séeing and hearing our foresaid dayly reading and examination of the Scriptures. Which béeing by D. Allen our President his order vsed amongst vs, who can doubt but he exhorteth men to reade the Scriptures, them specially that vnderstande Latin, much more thē S. Bedes historie? And namely y ^e Acts of the Apo­stles, what booke do I his scholler more often vse in my Motiues [Page 108] and Demaundes, then that? And touching a Catholike trāslation of the Scriptures, you shew your selfe to know litle, God wot­teth, what is D. Allens desire and minde therein. But all men may assure them selues, that any thing lacketh therevnto rather then good will and feruent zeale, specially because we sée it tran­slated already by Catholikes into al other languages almost, and because we know sundry cōmodities that might ensue thereof, & namely because we lament to see so many soules to dye in the most holsome waters, beeing turned into deadly bitternes by your Starre Absinthin, Apoc. 8. your blindnes withall being suche, that leauing both the authenticall Gréeke of the Septuaginta, which the Apostles and Primitiue Church did vse, and also the authen­ticall Latin, which the Church hath vsed so many hundred yeres, in some part euen from the beginning almost: you haue serued our countrey with y ^e olde Testament of the late obstinate Iewes vowelling, diuiding, and reading, it being of it selfe but one verse in the whole Psalter, and ech other particular booke, & onely con­sonantes, and to be read according to the tradition of the faith­full (which tradition we know by our authenticall translations) and not of the incredulous and perfidious.

No, no, whensoeuer we should make (if we were in case and place) a Catholike translation, and send the copies in, they should be in no lesse daunger of your searchers and fyres, then our other bookes haue bene, and are euery day more and more: but yet that daunger should not stay vs, if nothing els did: knowing that such a translation will confound you ten thousande times more then all the other bookes haue done.

Last of all, if none of my former requestes can finde place with you, at the least wise you shal haue here in the Chapter folowing an answere to all your Scriptures hither vnto alleaged in both your bookes, to chaw vpon for a while. And then tell your Rea­der, when, as you haue here renounced all other euidences, so he shall sée that you are no lesse destitute of Scripture also: tell him then (I say) blaming D. Allen, Pur. 364. and saying: And yet he wondreth that we are so blinde that we can not see the cleare light of truth. And againe in the ende of your booke, Pur. 458. In Gods name let the Rea­ders way indifferently, and as they see this poynt (of the dead) handled, so let them iudge of the rest. The trueth is vpholden by [Page 109] euident testimonie of Scripture: the error by custome, practise, and iudgement of men. The truth seeketh vnderstanding of the Scriptures, of the spirite of God in the Scriptures: error, at the mouthes of mortall men. Now thē to these euident Scriptures, in the name of God, and to your diuine vnderstanding of them.

The first part. Concerning the question of Onely Scripture.

And as touching the first: In the last Chapter we saw, how to make exception against all our other euidēces, he euermore said, that in all matters Onely euident Scripture must be brought and heard: confessing those other euidences to be so euident for vs, that they can not otherwise be auoyded. Now then, this bée­ing his onely refuge, how many and how euident Scriptures hath he alleaged for it, as you thinke? Surely in all his first booke to D. Allens Articles, they being altogether our foresaid Eui­dences, he alleageth but one place onely: and not many mo nei­ther in his other booke of Purgatorie. And what maner of place also, thinke you, that it is? specially considering howe muche he craketh of it, as where he saith: Thus I haue declared, Ar. 11.15 &c. that the true Church of Christ hath conuicted all Heretikes, onely by the Scripture. Agayne, it hath bene already proued sufficiently, Ar. 16. that the true Catholike Church which is ledde only by the worde of God, the onely weapon by which heresies are cut downe, counting it to be sufficient for that purpose, hath ouerthrowen heresies of all sortes. And againe: Doctrine is to be sought out [Page 110] and tried onely by the Scriptures, Ar. 82. as we haue declared at large in the answere to the fourth Article, first Demaunde. And once a­gaine: Ar. 86. As for doubtes that arise by difficultie of Scripture, or cō ­tention of heresie, they must be resolued and determined, as it is abundauntly declared before, onely by the Scriptures. With that place of Scripture he alleaged certayne Fathers, as Hilarius, Basilius, Chrysostome, Sainct Augustine, Leo the first, and the Councell of Constantinople the sixte. To whom I must aun­swere in the next Chapter. Infra pag. But he graunteth pardie, that the Fathers authoritie is no warrant to him so to crake: as another where also expresly he saith, Pur. 383. It is not for confirmation of the trueth, that we alleadge the authoritie of the Doctors and olde Councels. Then must all these crakes be onely in respect of the Scripture that you there alleaged. Let vs therefore nowe heare 1 that Scripture: So did Paule ouercome the Iewes, Act. 18. that is to say, Ar. 11. only by the Scripture. That he often disputed against the Iewes, prouing Iesus to be Christ, I there finde, but that his argumentes were none but Scriptures, I finde not. But reade you Actes .13. and you shall finde, that he vsed also other argu­mentes agaynst them, to witte, the testimonie of certayne men, as of S. Iohn Baptist, and of his owne Disciples, that sawe him many dayes together after his resurrection, qui vsque nunc sunt testes eius ad plebem, Who to this day are witnesses for him to the people. Reade likewise Act. 4. for the argument of Miracles, specially where it is sayde, Hominem quoque vi­dentes stantem cum eis qui curatus fierat, nihil poterant contra­dicere, Seeing the man also standing with Peter and Iohn, whom they had healed, the Gouernours of the Iewes were quite put to silence. And therefore also if S. Paule had in your place ouer­come them onely by Scriptures, it would not follow thereof, that no other argumentes are good ynough agaynst Iewes and Heretikes.

2 Now to the places alleaged in your other booke: Other per­swasion (say you) then suche as is grounded vpon the hearing of Gods worde, Pur. 6. will neuer of Christians be counted for true be­liefe, so long as the tenth Chapter to the Romanes remayneth in the Canon of the Bible. S. Paule there saith, that hearing is presupposed to beléeuing, and agayne to hearing is presupposed [Page 111] the worde of God. But in what sorte, the worde of God? onely in writing? doth he not there expresse, that by the worde of God he meaneth preaching, and preaching of suche as be Sent? for that which he saith in one place, Hearing is of Gods worde, the same he saith afore, How shall they heare without preachers? 1. Thes. 2. And what is more common in the New Testament, then to call the preaching of Gods messengers, the worde of God? Euen as we to this day count it the worde of God, which we heare of the Church of God, either in her Councels, or in her Doctors, or any other way, for so said God to them, He that heareth you, Luc. 10. hea­reth me.

And so S. Paul said to the Galathians, If any man preach vn­to 3 you any other Gospell, Gal. 1. then that which we haue preached vn­to you, and which you haue receiued, holde him for accursed He speaketh of preaching, and you alleage it as spoken of writing, and of onely writing. For thus you say to vs: It vexeth you at the very harte, Pur. 449.163. that we require the authoritie of the holy Scrip­tures, to confirme your doctrine, hauing a playne commaunde­ment out of the word of God, that if any man teache otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed. No syr, it rather reioyceth vs at the heart, to see that this very same texte which you Falsification by chaunging. corrupte, is so playne a warrant to our brethren the Romaines accursing your masters Luther and Caluine, for preaching an other Gospell, Act. 28. then that which S. Paule preached to the saide Romaines, and which they receyued of him, the Scripture also testifying in other places, Mat. 28. Act. 20. Rom. 15. that S. Paule and the other Apostles taught the Romaines and other Churches, all things: but not likewise that he or they wrote all whiche they taught: neither againe, that in suche things as they wrote, the Churches alwayes should be required to bring forth their wri­ting, & not otherwise to be credited, although they alleaged their preaching or tradition by worde of mouth.

Whereby you perceiue that your conclusion foloweth not, 4 though it were true that you bring out of another place, saying: All good workes are taught by the Scriptures: Pur. 410. it is S Paules 2. Tim. 3. the holy Scriptures are hable to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good workes. Suppose this to be S. Paules saying: will you conclude therof, that Timothie himselfe [Page 112] commending any thing for a good worke, and saying that he had it of S. Paules owne mouth, where he had all things, should not be credited, but néedes he must proue the same by Scripture? We say, all good works were taught the Church by the Apostles speaking, and that saying doth not take away the Apostles wri­ting. Euen so, if all good workes were taught in the Apostles writing, that taketh not away suche argumentes as are made vpon their speaking. As agayne, if a certayne article be confes­sed to be taught in S. Paules Epistles, or also if all Articles (for so your words pretende here in the last Chapter) will it not suf­fice for all that, to proue any article out of some other booke of Scripture? What a fonde reasoning is this, that because one euidence proueth all, therfore I can not haue any other euidence but that onely? And this I say, supposing that S. Paule had said, as you make him, All good workes are taught by the Scriptures, &c. But nowe I say further, that he doth not say so: but being now at the point of martyrdome, he exhorteth his Disciple not to faynt, but to fulfill his office to the ende, as he had done, the office (I say) of an Euangelist or Preacher, 2. Tim. 4. saying, that although he should nowe be depriued of his master, yet he had still the holy Scriptures with him, which be profitable, saith he, to teaching of truth, 2. Tim. 3. to disprouing of falshood, to correcting of vices, to instru­cting in righteousnes, that the man of God (that is, the Euange­list, be perfite, that is to say, furnished to euery good worke, mea­ning thereby those foresaid workes of an Euangelist, as he also there had said, 1. Tim. 3. he that desireth a Bishops office, desireth a good worke. Now it is one thing, the Scripture to be profitable to this, and another thing, to be able, or sufficient vnto it. Agayne it is one thing, the Scripture to be profitable to euery parte of preaching, and another thing, the Scripture to teach (expresly) all good workes, in euery particular, as Oblations for the dead, (for of that you speake) and so forth.

Pur. 434.Moreouer you alleage these two places, Search the Scriptures, and, Trie the spirites: and these you alleage for Only Scripture to be required both in all questions, and also in exposition of Scripture, declaring thereby, that you eyther know not or care not, what nor how you alleage. For where our Sauiour saith to the Iewes, Iohn. 5. ‘ Search the Scriptures, for they it are which beare wit­nesse [Page 113] of me, in the very same place he saith also vnto them, And Iohn did beare witnesse to the trueth. And againe, My workes, VVho euer al­leaged Scrip­ture more blindly. or Miracles, do beare witnesse of me, that my Father sent me, and that, a greater witnesse then Iohn. And againe, Also my Father who sent me, he hath giuen witnesse of me.’

Likewise vpon your other place, Trie the Spirites, you say, 6 And the Spirites are not tried but by the Scriptures. So you say, 1. Iohn. 4. Ar. 4. but your text doth not so say: yea the Apostle S. Iohn saith there straight after, By this we know a spirite (or Prophet, or teacher) of trueth, and a spirite of error. ‘Looke in the text, man, & sée what is that whereof he saith, by this, whether it be by Onely Scrip­ture, or by some thing els. Briefly, Beleeue not euery spirit (saith he, but trie the spirites whether they be of God, for then you may be bolde to beléeue them. By this is knowen a spirite of God first in one particular, which I passe ouer, then in generall, after this maner: You my children (you Romanes and other Catholikes) be of God. We (Apostles and other Catholike teachers) be of God. And therefore, He that knoweth God, heareth vs: and he that is not of God, doth not heare vs. By this we know a spirite of trueth, and a spirite of error, or a false Prophet: to wit, by considering whether he agrée with them that are of God, with them that receiued and kéepe the vnction or spirite of truth which was sent to the Church for euer, with them that depart not after any Seducers, but continue in that which they heard in the be­ginning, as the Romanes do most manifestly, no Antichrist nor Heretike being able to name the time, the noueltie, the Seducer, that euer they went after, so as Wittenberge, Geneua, England and all other that we charge with it, haue done most notoriously.’ This is the effect (in generall) of S. Iohns Epistles.

Agayne you alleage, and say: The word of the Lorde is a light 7 vnto our steppes, and a lanterne vnto our féete, Pur. 285.364. Psal. 118.18. Therfore we will not walke in the darknes of mens traditions. Item▪ The faithful testimonie of Gods word onely giueth true light vnto the eyes, as the Prophet saith. And by and by after you call it, The onely au­thoritie of Gods word written. But the Prophet neither hath the word onely, neither saith, that Gods word is not but in writing, but rather most euidently by Gods worde there he meaneth the preaching of his Apostles, Rom. 10. S. Paule also him selfe referring that [Page 114] verse of the same Psalme vnto them accordingly, Into all the earth their sound is gone forth, and their words to the ends of the world. And so you may see, the light of Gods word to be not on­ly in writing, but also in tradition by mouth.

8 Pur. 210.Last of all you alleage and say against Iudas Machabeus: In the Law not so much as one pinne of the Tabernacle was omit­ted, lest any thing might be left to the will of man, to deuise in the worship of God. Deut. 12. ver. 8. & 32. ‘You shall not do ( saith the Lord) what séemeth good in your owne eyes, but that which I commaunde you, that only shal you do, without adding any thing to it, or taking away any thing from it.’ You are very dayntie of your quotations, in maner none at all in your margin, because you alleage so fewe places, and commonly omitted in your texte also, because you alleage your places without booke. This is my coniecture, let the Reader loke in the places, as I doe quote them, because for bre­uitie sake I omitte many thinges that were worth the noting. Wel in this place, Moises saith not, That only which I do write, but, That only which I commaund you. And so our Sauiour said long after to the Iewes accordingly: Mat. 23. ‘ The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moises chaire: and therefore whatsoeuer they commaund you, obserue it and doe it.’ As for the Pinnes of the Tabernacle, they are so mentioned for other causes, as you may sée in the Doctors Commentaries, and not for the cause that you imagin, that is, to leaue nothing to any man afterwarde in the worship of God, for how say you then by Dauid and Salamon, who chaunged not only a pinne yea all the pinnes, but also that whole Tabernacle, building in stéed of it, a Temple in Hierusalem, and there ordei­ning musicall instrumentes, and many other things, for the wor­ship of God, that the law did not mention. You alwayes erre, be­cause you do not distinguish betwene men that haue onely their owne humane spirite, and men that haue the spirite of God, as Moyses, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Catholike Church.

And so hauing answered al your places, I would your Vnlear­ned Brother to know of it, him that euery yere sendeth out the Newyeres giftes, and what els I know not, and to tell me now, why I might not in my last Motiue call this your Castle of Onely Scripture, Onely Scrip­ture. Your weake and false Castle: Weake, be­cause you haue no defence at all for it, neither of Srripture, [Page 115] as I haue here declared, neither of Doctor, as in the nexte chapter I will declare. False, because not so much as one worde of Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the ende of the Apocalipse, maketh for you in any thing, nor against vs in any thing, as in this Chapter I doe ynough to persuade therein any reasonable man, and therefore it is but a false sleight of you Heretikes, and a mere deception of the simple, when you be ouerthrowen by Apostolike traditions, by auncient Fathers, and so by many other our weapons in Christe, as in the laste Chapter your selfe haue confessed, to sette a bolde face vpon it, and vaunte, that yet for all that the Scriptures be plainelye for you, and plainely against vs. In which boldnes your im­pudencie cryeth euen to heauen, when you dare yet vaunt there­of so farre, to saye, that the Church of God is faine therefore, to blaspheme the holye Scriptures, seeing them to make so plainely for you. When you here in the laste Chapter, and your Masters and Scholefelowes commonly in their writinges feare not to open your mouthes thus against Gods holy Ta­bernacle in earth: I that am nothing, and in very deede no­thing, and lesse then nothing, may not disdaine the like opening at me by the foresaide Vnlearned, but contenting me with mine owne conscience, and the conscience of God him selfe and his Angels, and all his Seruauntes that knowe me by my person, or by my writings, beeing moste certaine how alwayes in heart and worde I haue honored the most holy Scriptures, euen as gods owne liuely and infallible worde, I submit my selfe with Dauid in an humble and contrite heart, to all that Semei hath or shall vtter against me, if peraduenture my Lorde God most mercifull will accept it to forgeuenes of my manifold and heynous sinnes: desiring of him no other reuenge, but the par­ties conuersion and reconciliation to him and his swéete spouse my lieue Mother the Catholike Church. And so muche in this place to that man.

In which place you also, Fellow Fulke, Arg. ab au­thoritate negatiuè. may be admonished to looke better to your Logicke, concerning your argument ab authoritate negatiuè, that you oppose it no more to our so ma­ny argumentes ab authoritate affirmatiuè. I gaue you a litle before two causes thereof: consider them well I pray you. [Page 116] All knowledge that Christian men haue of heauenly things (you say, Pur. 449. to mainteine your argument) is grounded vpon the autho­ritie of Gods word, meaning the Scripture. Therefore as it is no good Logicke, to conclude negatiuely of one place or booke of Scripture, This is not conteined in it, therefore it is not true: So of the whole doctrine of God, wherein all trueth necessary to sal­uation is conteined, the argument is most inuincible that conclu­deth negatiuely thus: All true doctrine is taught in the Scripture, Purgatory is not taught in the Scripture, therefore Purgatory is no true doctrine. Letting Purgatory alone till anone, there are two faultes, I say, in this reasoning. One, because the Maior is false, as to all your textes alleaged for it, I haue answered. The other, because although the Maior were true, yet can not the ar­gument be opposed to our argumentes, as you oppose it in the last Chapter. You might, if the Maior were true, labour to the purpose (I graunt) in prouing the Minor. But you might not, I say, for all that, make of it an opposition or exception, when we make argumentes out of Traditions, Councels, Fathers, &c. as in the like I shew vnto you: I proue a doctrine vnto you out of the Old Testament, you oppose therevnto your negatiue argu­ment, and say to me: All true doctrine is taught in the New Te­stament (for so you do holde, and must holde) that doctrine is not taught in the New Testament: therfore that doctrine is no true doctrine. Is this well opposed of you? May not I say to you not­withstanding, Yea syr, but for all that, what say you to my place alleaged out of the Old Testament? vnlesse you haue any thing against the Old Testament it selfe. Euen so, vnles you haue any thing directly against Traditions them selues, Councels, Fa­thers, and suche others, our argumentes do preuayle, and you in vayne do flée to Only Scripture, although all true doctrine were taught in Scripture. Now to the second question concerning the Church.

¶The second part. Concerning the question of the Church.

About the Church, his contradictions are very many and very palpable, as I will declare in the eleuenth Chapter. Here I haue to examine, what he alleageth first indefinitely, That the Church [Page 117] may erre, That it may be diuorced, That it is a base and con­temptible companie, That it may, and also should become inui­sible: and then by name, That the Protestantes haue the true Church, or, That the Papistes haue it not.

The third part. Concerning the question of Purgatory.

D. Allen in the end of his booke of Purgatory, made two chap­ters of answere to their Scriptures: yet saith Fulke at the first of the two: This Chapter is but, Pro forma tantum, Pur. 437. To make a shew of a confutation, where the tenth part of our arguments are not rehearsed: notwithstanding, there, and other where vp and downe he said inough to answere all. But I shal endeuour there­fore to satisfie the man better in this behalfe, collecting together not only the tenth part, but euen al his scriptures, not omitting as much as one, by my will, though such collecting and disposing of things so dispersed, cost me in euery Chapter of this booke, as much or more labour, then to answere the same afterward.

[Page 134]Well syr then, you reason against Purgatorie by authoritie of Scripture, in part negatiuely, in part affirmatiuely. And your negatiue reasoning, is sometimes of a piece onely, sometimes of the whole Scripture. Againe, when it is out of a piece onely, it is partly out of some one place, partly out of some one booke.

The fourth part. Concerning all other questions that he mentioneth.

And first to put all the same in some order, for the more vtilitie of the Reader: I conceaue all the differences that are betwéene vs and the Protestants in this diuision: Some are about the wit­nesses of Gods word, the principles of Diuinitie, or groundes of all truth: which by them is onely Scripture, by vs not onely Scripture but also the Church, and certain others: whervpon we frame our Motiues to all men, to beléeue vs & not the Heretikes, shewing them, that such and such are the principles which they must beléeue, and withall, that the said principles, euery one of them, stand for vs, and not for the Protestantes. Some are about other particular or priuate controuersies: Which may be redu­ced vnto these two heades, Good-workes, and the Sacramentes, the doctrine of which both, they corrupt with their new inuētion of Onely faith, Only Scripture▪ and Only Faith as they do the foresaid with their toye of Onely Scripture.

What Scripture he alleageth about the first sort, I haue in the two first partes of this chapter reported them al, & answered thē, sauing a very few, which I reserue to y ^e tenth chapter which shall be of euery Motiue or Demaund apart by it selfe. There in these fiue Motiues, of Churches, Seruice, Priesthood with Sacrifice, Monkes and Pope, I will answere his few Scriptures thervnto belonging.

Now then, concerning the second sort, and first Good-workes, what he alleageth about them, concerneth them partly in gene­rall, partly in speciall, that is to say, prayer, fasting, or almes.

The first parte. Of his Doctours, generally.

The second part. Of his Doctors particularly. First, whether they expound any Scripture against vs.

I find that he alleageth the Interpretors about thrée matters, which are these, Antichrist, Onely faith, and Purgatory.

1. Collatio Carthaginensis touching the Church of the Scriptures.

FIrst therefore, by reason of their triuiall position of Onely Scripture in all questions (for the which notwithstāding, they haue neither Scripture, nor Doctor, as I haue sufficiently decla­red cap. 8 pag. 110. and cap. 9. pag. 171. to 183.) and because the ques­tion of the Church is of all other the principall, as one which be­ing agréed vpon, and so the House of saluation found, all brable is at an end, also by Fulkes owne confession here cap. j. Whether it can not erre, as we say, or may erre, as they say: Herevpon in my very first Demaunde, on the one side I aske them (as S. Au­gustine did the Donatistes) some euident Scripture for their Church, that is to say, for Luthers piece, or for Caluines piece of Luthers piece: on the other side I point them to very many most euident Scriptures for our Church (in S. Augustines two books against the Donatistes, de Collatione Carthaginensi, and de vni­tate Ecclesiae) that is to say, for the Church beginning at Hieru­salem, Act. 1. like the litle musterdseede, Mat. 13. and growing and spreading thence ouer all Nations, ouer S. Augustine and his felowes in the Christian Nations of their time, and ouer vs and our felowes in the Christian Nations of our time, and so forth to the end of the world.

Now Fulke, wheresoeuer he maketh mention of the saide Carthage Conference, &c. What doth he? doth he reply, and shew, that the same most euident Scriptures make for his Church: or, that they make not for S. Augustines Church, and our Church, that is, for the visible Church of all Christian Nations? yea like a blind buzzard, he there ouerthroweth quite his owne Church, and plainely confirmeth ours, as I haue noted cap. 9. pag. 176. to 183. [Page 266] in the question of Only Scripture, vpon the places of S. Augustine (which he there alleageth) requiring and bringing Scriptures for the Church. And as I offer cap. 7. pag. 106. to shew more copi­ously, if he dare ioyne with me vpon this Demaund: and stand to S. Augustines Disputation at Carthage, &c. and to the euident Scriptures there recited as cōcerning this questiō of the Church. And as towching certaine darke and obscure Scriptures, such as S. Augustine would haue to be set aside in this question: the Do­natistes in déede alleaged some suche for their Church, that is, for Donates piece cut of from the Church of all Nations. But for Luther or Caluines piece, Fulke hath alleaged neither so much as any such. Howbeit against our Church he hath aleaged some such. But I haue cap. 8. pag. 124. to 133. most cléerely shewed, that nei­ther they make any whit at all against our Church (as neither certaine expositions of some Fathers cap. 9 pag. 155) and that they make vnauoideably against the Protestantes. Being readie to shew the like, in those more euident Scriptures also, which the Donatistes alleaged against our Church, if Fulke list to repeate them, and in any other likewise that he can alleage.

2. Building of the Church amid persecution.

In the 2. Demaund I reporte S. Chrysostomes argument (which is not his onely, yea it is the Scriptures) against the Iewes and Paynimes, to proue, that Christ is God, because no Persecution of theirs or any others could, or can suppresse Christes Church, though in the first beginning of it, it were so poore and smal, and they so mightie and cruell against it: but that it hath, and shall continually stand in the sight of the world, mau­ger all the Gates of Hell.

Now Fulke to this argument hath answered nothing, nor to the Doctors, and Scriptures that make it. The Iewes and Pay­nimes are not yet so much beholding vnto him. Marie an obiectiō against it, I graunt, may be made of the texte of the Apocalypse here cap. 8. pag. 124. as you alleage it, and vnderstand it, to wit, that the Persecution of Antichrist shall driue the Church into the Wildernes, that is (you say) into a secrete place, out of the open sight of the world, Fulk a falsarie. there to remaine for a long season. But I haue there declared manifestly, by the text it selfe, that both in [Page 267] your alleaging you play the falsarie, putting a long season, for a very short season, and in your vnderstanding a deprauer of Scripture to your owne damnation, expounding that which is ment of fleeing in heart to God in time of worldly desolation, to be meant, of becomming corporally inuisible.

3. Going out. Motiue 18.

Thirdly I demaunde of them, to shew when we went out of the foresaid Church of al Christian Nations, séeing they denie vs to be still within it. As we say, and the world seeth, and Fulke him selfe confesseth here cap. 7. pag. 103. that they are departed from our Church, and goeth about to yéelde a cause for their so doing: Whereas by S. Augustine (whom him selfe alleageth here cap. 9. pag. 177. as it were agaynst our separating of our selues from them, which is one of his grosse contradictions: and this also no better, Ar. 66. that we Catholikes are departed from the Gretians) it is impossible for any to haue a iust cause to Sepa­rate them selues from the said Church. In so much, that no com­panie can be named, from the very beginning of y ^e same Church, which so did, and obstinately stoode in it (as they do,) but it was Schismaticall. Yea and against his imagined Church in the wil­dernes here cap. 8. pag. 124. we are expresly warned, If they saye vnto you, Ecce in deserto est, Beholde Christ is in the wildernes, nolite exire, do not goe out, Matth. 24. but kéepe still in the visi­ble euerlasting Church that visibly commeth of me, beginning at Hierusalem.

4. Rising after. Motiue 19. Article. 11.

Fourthly I require them, to shewe any beginning of our Church, other then the beginning of Christes Church at Hierusa­lem, Act. 2. As we shew, and the world séeth the beginning of their companie now of late by Luther, who afore was one of vs, nor he onely, but all that he drew away after him. So that no man can say, they were afore that, inuisible Protestants, because it is so euident, that they were visible Papists. And to these two, or either of them, Fulke answereth nothing.

I require them moreouer in the same Demaund, to shewe so much as any first beginner of any one Article of our doctrin, so as [Page 268] he receiued it not at the handes of his Predecessors, and they of theirs, and so forth, euen vp to the Apostles. As we shew that Lu­ther began his new Articles of him selfe, and receiued them not at any mans hands. And also, if any of the same Articles had in old time any patrone, (as Aerius agaynst praying for the dead) that he likewise in his time was the first beginner of it, and re­ceiued it not of his Elders, but that his Elders held the contrary of his Article, so that his Article euidently was of him selfe, and not of the Apostles. Hovv this iiij. and xxxviij. Demaund doe differ. I do not here charge them with such Articles as they were of the Church then condemned for heresies (for that is enough of it selfe against them, whether they were then first begon, or afore: and therfore I haue of that a seueral Demaund num. 38.) but as they were then first begunne, which of it selfe is enough to shew that they were not receiued from the Apostles, whether they were condemned of the Church then for Heresies, or no. Now of these matters there are two long Treatises be­twene D. Allen and Fulke, first in the booke of Articles, Art. 11. pag. 35. to 47. Secondly, in the booke of Purgatorie lib. 2. ca. 13. and 14. pag. 387. to 424. In which places the olde Heresies that they charge one another withall, I reserue to their proper place in the Demaund aforesaide: as also the chaunges that he sayth some Popes to haue made, to the 45. Demaund. What then be­longeth to this Demaund? First touching the argumentes or consequences: secondly touching the antecedents.

The 1. Arg.The one argument is this: Our first Authors can not be na­med: Ergo, they were none other but the Apostles. His first an­swere is, that it followeth not. And one while he doth nothing but chafe at vs for it, saying, Must we finde out the authors of Heresies? Pur. 391. Nay iustifie them your selues by the worde of God if you can, &c, as I noted here cap. 7. pag. 79. Another while he will answere it with a witty example of the common wealth, say­ing: Must the Magistrate either iustifie a theefes possession, or els bring out the author where he had it? Nay the theefe must bring out good proofe, how and by whō he came by such goods, or els he is worthy to be serued like suche a one. If that would serue, we bring so good proofe for the Article of praying for y ^e dead wherof you there intreat, that your selfe confesse we stole it not, but that we receiued it from hand to hand of our Auncetors, ca. 3. [Page 269] whom your selfe confesse to haue bene the true Church of Christ cap. 2. Will you then quit vs, & with your witty example charge Christes Church to be a théefe? But you confesse, cap. 3. pag. 19.20.21. that she telleth you how she came by it, to wit, by y ^e Scrip­ture and Tradition of the Apostles. And moreouer, howe your friend Aerius would haue stolen it from hir, as now your grand­sire Luther would steale it from hir heire. What Magistrate af­ter al this wil admit the théefe to pleade against the lawfull heire in such childish maner as you do, hauing nothing neither to dis­proue the possession, or the Euidēces of the heire, nor to bring as Euidence for your selfe: as by my answers in the chapters afore­going it is most manifest. Pur. 388. Againe (you say) the first author of euery heresie can not be named. Where you recken ten, and say: These and a hundred more heresies, shal they be thought to haue their heresie from Tradition of the Apostles, if the first author of them can not be named? For example: There was one heresie of them that were called Acephali, because there was no head kno­wen of them. Where haue you that cause? I Nicenū 2. con. pa. 62. tomo. 3, Nicep. li. 16 ca. 27.finde that Seue­rus B. of Antioch was their head, whose name was Seuerus A­cephalus. And againe, that they were but a piece of the Eutichi­ans, whose head was Eutyches: as the Puritanes, whose special head we be not certayne of, are a piece of the Caluinists. In such sort to shew the author, is enough: or also to shew the beginning it selfe, for that is the cause why we séeke for the author, to shew the beginning. Which againe is shewed euē by this that the pri­mitiue name of Christians would not serue them, but they must haue new names to be called by, that, I say, declareth that they began after the beginning. And so we can shew the authors also of the other nine Heresies that you name (which also your selfe do in naming of them) and of all other, if it were worth y ^e while, as partly you may sée noted in M. Rishons Table. And in no such sort can you shew our first authors.

And so I am now come to your second answere, wherein you denie our Antecedent. For you say: Pur. 402.413. If any man or men were the authors of our faith, as it fareth with the Popish faith, we should be iniurious vnto them, if we did not acknowledge our founders, as they do some of theirs. Tute Lepus es, & pulpamentum quae­ris. You make D. Allen to be that same non plus of Cambridge, Pur. 64. [Page 270] who when he lacked an argument, said, he would dispute ex con­cessis. You are he euen your selfe. Do we acknowledge any founders of our faith, but the Apostles of Christ?

Ar. 47.Agayne you say: Thus we haue noted to you the names of di­uers Heretikes, which first preached certayne Articles of your doctrine. Those notes you meane wherewith you noted here cap. 3. pag. 24. the confessed true Church, aswell as vs: which I haue cleane wyped out cap. 6. pag. 57.58. and will wype away the rest likewise here in the 38. Demaund.

Ar. 39. Pur. 389.Againe for the first beginning of one particulare, you say: It can not be proued out of any authentical writer, or by any credi­ble author, that any before Tertullian, who was almost two hun­dred yeres after the incarnation of Christ, eyther named or allo­wed prayer for the dead, or that it was vsed in the Church. Ter­tullian him selfe flourishing within one hundred yeares after the Apostles, doth witnesse, that it was vsed before his time, and that it came to his time by Tradition of the Apostles. The same doth S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, and many mo, witnesse, by your owne cōfession here cap. 3. pag. 2.3.4. Are not these authenticall writers, nor credible authors nowe with you, who here cap. 2. pag. 11. to 22. were with you, the most approued writers, and the Doctors of Gods Churche? I thinke Gods Church may beléeue her Doctors better then you her rebels. Howbeit also any reasonable man will thinke it e­nough for vs, to bring it vp to Tertullians time, and put you to proue that then it began, if you will not graunt that it came from the Apostles.

Ar. 43.Of another particular you say: Transubstantiation, no small Article of your Religion, was not decreed vntill the yeare of God (of our Lorde you would saye) 1215. But you will not, I trow, inferre therevpon, that then it beganne. For by the same reason an Arrian maye say, that Homousion, no small Ar­ticle of our Religion, beganne in the first Nicene Councell, be­cause it was not decréed vntill then. Both wordes were then decréed, but the things meant by them, came euen from the A­postles, Lanfrācus lib. contra Bereng. and was decréed also, the one of them 200. yeres afore that time, to witte, when the Heresie of Berengarius ( super­esse in Altari post consecrationem substantiam panis & vini, the [Page 271] substance of the bread and wine to remayne after Consecration, and not only agaynst the Reall presence) was condemned in di­uers Councels, and he glad to recant it: as by the writers of the same time we know.

The other Argument is directly agaynst you (as this was directly for vs. The 2. Arg.) Your first Authors can be named after the be­ginning of the Church, rising with their new opinions: Ergo, their opinions were Heresies, and they were Heretikes, and you be Heretikes, namely maynteining the same obstinatly. Here a­gayne you denie both the consequence, and the antecedent: but how friuolously, I haue at large reported cap. 7. pag. 80. where you put in your poore and colde exception of Onely Scripture, hauing nothing els to stay agaynst the Auncient Fathers, who both made that consequence, and also noted your beginners, but that they muste proue all by Scripture, or els neither doth their argument holde, neither was Aerius (&c.) your first Au­thor. As also in another place you say to D. Allen therevpon: Your rule is false. For you leaue out the chiefest condition, Pur. 413. which, js, that the opinion it selfe be contrarie to the trueth first preached by the Apostles, or els it is no Heresie, though it maye be truely fathered vpon any man, sooner or later. Full wisely. D. Allens rule is this: ‘[Any opinion that maye be truely fa­thered vpon any man, that was long after the trueth was firste preached by the Apostles, if it be vpon a poynt of Faith, and contentiously maynteined, it is an Heresie,] that is to say, con­trarie to the trueth first preached by the Apostles.’ And you can by no exception, by no reason disproue it. Now your rule is this: Any opinion that maye be truely fathered vpon any man long after the Apostles, if it be vpon a poynt of Faith, &c, and contrarie to the trueth first preached by the Apostles, it is an Heresie, that is to say, contrarie, &c. Are not you then a proper rule giuer? Any opinion that is contrarie to the trueth first prea­ched by the Apostles, is contrarie to the trueth first preached by the Apostles. No doubt but D. Allen should do wisely, to cor­rect his rule, which is not his, but the Fathers rule, by suche learned aduise.

5. Contradicted.

Motiue 20. Article. 11.Another rule of D. Allens is, according to my next Demaūd, Pur. 412. Whosoeuer was wondred at and withstand and in his first arising and preaching, by such as were in the vnitie of the Church, (as Aerius by S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, &c. and now Luther and Caluine by the Romanes, &c.) he was (according to the matter) an Heretike, or a Schismatike, if he were obstinate. I aske them therefore, who so withstoode vs at any time, or what heresie was not so withstood, according to Gods promise to his Church: ‘Vpon thy walles, Esa. 62. O Hierusalem, I haue set watchmen: all day, and al night, euen for euer, non tacebunt, they shal not be scilent. Whervpon S. Augustine saith confidently, by the warrant also of the Parable: Aug. ep. 119 cap. 19. Mat. 13. Ecclesia dei inter multā paleam, &c. The Church of God beset with much chaffe and with much cockle, although she tolerate many things, not béeing able to redresse them, yet such things as be agaynst faith or good life, she neither alloweth, nor is scilent, nor practiseth.’ And Fulke him selfe saith as much: The Church of Christ in suche places as she is (ioyne herevnto ca. 2. Ar. 92. where he confesseth the knowen Church of the first 600. yeres) suffereth no man damnably abusing her Religion, with­out open reprehension.

Now against this, and so against him selfe to, what hath he to say? One while he bringeth causes, why and how our Religion entred into the true Church with scilence. 1 For because it came not in sodenly, Ar. 43.39.35. Pur. 256. but entred by small degrees at the first: and there­fore was lesse espied by the true Pastors, (where he addeth) espe­cially being earnestly occupied against great Heresies, and open aduersaries, that sought to beate downe the chiefe foundations of Christian faith, as the Valentinians, Marcionistes, Manichees, Arrians, Pur. 419. Sabellians, and such like monsters. 2 Another meane or cause was this, that in those auncient times if the Gentiles or Heretikes had any thing that seemed to haue a shew of pietie, or charitie, they would draw it into vse, with such correction as they thought was sufficient. And this was a great corruption. Where he addeth, So they tooke of them, &c. eight or nyne things of ours he there nameth, his words are here cap. 3. pag. 9. Amongst the which prayer for the dead is one, 3. the causes and maner of the entring wherof he rendreth in like sort more at large. cap. eodem [Page 273] pag. 14. to 20. as, because it had a pretence of Charitie, Ar. 39. Pur. 386.78. it deceiued simple men the sooner. And the ignorant peoples error first win­ked at, because it had a shew of pietie, was allowed at length of Augustine, and others, who folowed the common errors of their time. To omit, that D. Allen foresaw and preuented these goodly causes (Pur. 384. &c.) I say it is a fond part, to tel why and how a thing was done, which thing was neuer done. For so the Scrip­ture before alleaged promiseth, and S. Augustine affirmeth, that there should not be, nor was, any such silence in the true Pastors. In so much, that you can not name any confessed Heresie, but it was so contradicted, howsoeuer the Fathers were at the same time otherwise occupied. And we shew, that these supposed Here­sies were not (as you blaspheme) taken into the Church by emu­lation of Paganes or Heretikes, as here cap. 6. pag. 36. to pag. 56. In how many places doth S. Augustine say, that Origens he­resie of the Damneds saluation after a while, was ioyned with a certaine humane pietie: And yet, who knoweth not, how the Ori­genistes for all that, were most ernestly and continually resisted. And the like may be shewed in all the like, that as well the Here­sies which had a shew of pietie and charitie, were faithfully resi­sted, as the others, no Heresie at all lacking some shew for the time. And howsoeuer now you make a small matter of prayer for the dead, Cap. 11. cō ­tradict. [...]1. in the next Chapter (after your vsuall maner of con­tradicting your selfe) you will make it equall to the greatest, most blasphemous against Christ and against God, and occasion of most licentious wickednes in all that belieue it, &c. Besides that the Fathers in déede withstood your friend Aerius, who would haue entred with the contrarie, and likewise all those other kno­wen friends of yours, the old Heretikes. Had they, for all their being occupied against those horrible Heresies, leasure to with­stand trueth, and had they not leasure to withstand corruptions of trueth? You thinke your folowers very béetles, if you hope to blind them with such grosse conueiance.

But you haue also Scripture forsooth, to couer your iuggling. Ar. [...]8. 2. Thes. 2. For, when the Scripture telleth vs, that the Mysterie of iniquitie, preparing for the General defection, & Reuelation of Antichrist, wrought euen in S. Paules time: it is folly to aske, whether so­denly and in one yere, (and consequently, with much preaching [Page 274] against it, Ar. 43) all Religion was corrupted. Against your bla­phemous vnderstanding of this texte, as if it said, that the Church of Christ wrought the mysterie or preparation of Antichrist, I haue replied cap. 8. pag. 121. But now, whosoeuer wrought it, doth your text say, that ther was then no preaching against it? No such word. Besides, what a mad imagination is this of yours, that if all Religion had bene corrupted in one yeare, then the Pastors would haue cryed out against it: but being wrought by litle and litle, they either could not espie it, or were content to winke at it? For who séeth not in the Ecclesiasticall Histories and other monumentes of Antiquitie, that they gaue warning vigilantly and faithfully, as well against those Heretikes that would haue corrupted but one or a few Articles, as against those others that sought to corrupt many or all? So haue they done all the time of the mysterie, against all the Heresies that from the beginning haue wrought it, 1. Ioan. 2. couertly therein seruing Antichrist, them selues also therefore termed Antichristes. So they do now also, being the time of the defection or Apostasie, (though not Generall. S. Paule doth not so call it) of which Antichristian Mysterie you Protestants are the workers, as I haue declared cap. 8. pag. 124. to .133. And after all the mysterie, when his Reuelation cōmeth, shall that at least passe vncontrolled? You, according to the blas­phemies of your Apostasie, do make, that Antichrist is long agoe reuealed (to the which I haue in the same place answered moste irrefragably by the Scriptures them selues that you abuse.) But now, whensoeuer his Reuelation be, doth any text say, that there is then no preaching agaynst him? Ar. 36. 2. Thes. 2. Mat. 24. Apoc. 12. For so you say: When the comming of Antichrist was in all power of lying signes and wonders, in so muche that (if it were possible) the very Elect should be deceiued: and a generall departing from the fayth was foreshewed: and the Church to be driuen into the wildernesse: What maruell were it, if none of our Church could preach a­gainst it, as it first entred? As though the Scripture were not playne, that not onely as he shall enter, when the time of his Reuelation commeth, but also euen during the whole time of his raigne, there shall be open and stoute preaching against him ouer all the worlde, with moste mightie working of true Mi­racles agaynst his lying wonders, and moste constant resisting [Page 275] of him to bloud and to death, though his tormentes and tormen­tors be neuer so horrible and Satanicall. As I haue partly no­ted in the same 8. chapter, pag. 124. to 130.

All this you haue said, to defend, that our Religion might be false and of a later entraunce, Ar. 36. although it were not gaynesaid at the first entring of it. As for that which you say of preaching and writing agaynst the Popes authoritie, when it first began, it is answered aboue cap. 9. pag. 157.

Now on the other side, that your Religion is not false, though it were withstood by the true Pastors in Aerius, Iouinianus, &c. this you say: Pur. 413. They that defended that Heretikes should not be baptized, were withstood by Cyprian and all the Bishops of Af­frica, who were in the vnitie of the Church: yet were they not he­retikes, nor their opinion heresie. Much forsooth to the purpose. Were withstood (you should haue added) at their first arising and preaching. But then you had marred your example your selfe. For their opinion did not then first arise, but came by lineall tra­dition from the Apostles. And the contrary opinion of Agrippi­nus and his successor S. Cyprian did then first arise, and was withstoode by Pope Stephanus, &c. who Aug. de bap. cont. Don. li. 5. ca. 23. wrote and com­maunded, Vincen. Lirin. ca. 9. apud Cyp. epist. 74. nihil nouandum, nisi quod traditum est, to make no innouation, but keepe the Tradition. And therfore it was an heresie, and they that helde it obstinately (as afterward the Do­natistes and Luciferians) were Heretikes, and the Eus. li. 7. ca. 2.3.4. Niceph l. 6. ca. 7. Hier. cōtra Lucif. Bed. l. octo quest. q. 5. Aug. cōtra Cresc. li. 3. ca. 1.2.3. & de Bap. li. 2. ca. 4. & Ep. 48.Catholiks recanted it, both in Africa & in Phrygia, though S. Cyprian him selfe peraduenture was martyred in the meane time.

But yet you haue in store one example about this rule, to dorre vs withall, and to shew, that Ar. 93. the Romish Church can well inough abide, the true Religion of Christ to be damnably a­bused (by wicked men) not only without (open or priuie) repre­hension, but also with allowing. Which is no worse thē you hold here of the true auncient Church which you cal your owne. But your example out of Matthaeus Paris. is cleane agaynst your selfe. For it sheweth manifestly, that neither those Friars prea­chers, which attributed too much to Religion or life Monasticall, nor those Parisian Doctors, which detracted too muche from it, lacked their reprehenders among y ^e Catholikes, as they were all, vntill some of the Doctors afterwards proued obstinat heretiks. [Page 276] And that when the matter was brought before the Pope, he tooke such blessed order with it, as was very méete for his Apostolike See, to wit, that the Friars new scandalous booke secreto com­bureretur, should be priuily burned: for shaming their order, say you. And what fault was that, I pray you? Know you not, how S. Augustine vsed Pelagius and his disciples in the beginning of their new doctrine, when he first wrote against them? ‘Tacen­da adhuc arbitratus, Aug. Retr. li. 2. ca. 33. &c. I thought good not to expresse as yet their names, hoping that so they might more easily be amended. Imo Pelagij ipsius nomen non sine aliqua laude posui: quia vi­ta eius a multis praedicabatur: Yea in my next writing expressing the name of Pelagius himselfe, I did it not without some prayse: because his life was commended of many.’ Thus did S. Augustin vse one Monke, and him the author of a most pestilent Heresie, as he proued afterwards. And your Christian spirite would haue all the order, all Monkes, the innocent also, shamed for the fault of a few. Such would haue bene your care to amend those few: and such your prouidence to saue the wheate, whereof these fewe might haue made as gret waste, if they had not bine wisely hand­led, as Friar Luther now hath made, for lacke of a siluer spurre and a Cardinals hatte: and as Erasmus also might haue made, had he not bene made of by Catholike Bishops farre aboue his merites.

Yet one shift more you may séeme to haue, where you say for your argument ab authoritate negatiuè, of the whole Scriptures authoritie negatiuely: Pur. 449. And this conclusion M. Allen him selfe made of mans authoritie, cap. 13. Purgatorie and prayers for the dead were not preached against at their first entry: Ergo they are true, or rather, there was no such entrie of them as you imagine, but they came lineally and quietly from the Apostles. But of all mens authoritie it is false, you say. Howsoeuer the argument of all mens authoritie negatiuely be, good or bad, who but you would call this such a one: All heresies (according to the Scriptures, Fathers, and Histories) haue bene preached against at their first entry. This was neuer preached against: Ergo this is no here­sie, nor neuer since the Apostles time did enter.

6. Catholikes. Motiue 1. Article. 20.

First then we say, that sith the Apostles did bid vs beléeue that church which is named The Catholike Church, euermore to this day they haue ben true Catholikes in déede, which were in times of Heresies and Schismes commonly called Catholikes, and ea­sily knowen thereby. For this we alleage among others, S. Au­gustine: wherof you take notice (which may be written, it is so rare a thing in this your booke against the Articles) and go about to answere him with his owne words: but very fondly, as I haue shewed cap. 9. pag. 182. The rest that you haue, is opposi­tions after your custome. As where you oppose to this name, your stale exception (which here cap. 7. Ar. 69. you oppose to all things) of Onely Scripture, saying: Wherfore howhoeuer you boast of the honorable name of Catholike, except you proue that your opinions agree with the Scripture, they are not Catholike in dede, by Chrysostomes iudgement. Againe: By this you may see, that Chrysostome thought it not sufficient to haue the name of Ca­tholike. Your folly in this allegation I detected cap. 9. pag. 172. [Page 278] neither is it Chrysostomes, neither doth he speake of the name Catholike, nor of the Apostles writings, but of the Apostolike Sees writings.

Ar. 66.Another opposition: You your selues will not account the Gre­cians (now since their separation) for true Christians. And yet as many nations haue since then called them Catholikes, as you are able to shew on your side. Though they are not so called by you: for no more are you so called by them. Be bolde to say ynough, how litle soeuer you be able to proue. To saye, the Grecians be called Catholikes, is like as to say, the Latines be called Catho­likes: which were forsooth a proper saying, considering that not only we but you also be Latines. But this I say, that as among the Latine or Westerne Christians, he that in common talke or writings heareth Catholikes named, vnderstandeth vs therin, & not you: so likewise if he heare the Catholike Gretians, or the Catholikes of the East, whether he be Latine or Gretian, he vn­derstandeth them that be with the Pope, & beléeue the holy-Ghost to procéede of the sonne also, & not the Schismaticall & Heretical Gretians. And therfore in this example is nothing to the contra­rie, but that they be true Catholikes, which are knowen by the name of Catholikes. And so much you say of the name and rule it selfe. Now which of vs two haue that name, whether we, or you?

Ar. 66.The Heretike Gretians do not call vs Catholikes, you say. No more do you that be Heretike Latines. But yet both you and they mistake not the person, when common talke and bookes so calleth vs. Therfore (I say) we be true Catholikes. On the other side you say: Ar. 68. And we haue as many Nations, and more then you haue, that by publike authoritie call vs Catholikes, and you He­retikes. Who be so called any where by publike authoritie, is not the question, but who be commonly called & knowen by that name. Howbeit also of any such publike authoritie no man kno­weth but your selfe. But this all men know, that those also of your owne side, in Fraunce, Flaunders, &c. in their publike E­dictes, call vs Catholikes, and them selues by other names.

Now supposing that it is our name, yet you haue a shift, say­ing, Ar. 67. that we boast and trust onely in these names, (Catholike) and (Church,) without the thinges them selues, as the wicked Iewes did, crying, The Temple of the Lorde, when they had no­thing [Page 279] lesse then the Temple of the Lorde, Iere. 7. Mat. 21. but rather a denne of theeues. Our Lord both in the Prophet, and in the Gospell, ac­knowledgeth it to be his Temple, although they in it were thée­ues and wicked persons. So is ours his Catholike Church, al­though some of vs were so wicked as you make vs. Howbeit the wicked both then and now, trusting onely in the Temple and in the Church, and not amending their liues, deceiue them selues: how much more they that trust in the cōuenticles of Heretikes, which are the Synagogues of Satan.

On the other side, supposing that it is not your name, you haue also your shift, saying: Ar. 68. If you haue no greater argument to con­demne vs, thē that we are not called The Catholike Church, then you can no more condemne vs then Christ and his Apostles, that were not onely not called the true Church, but also were called Heretikes and deceiuers, by the Iewes, which were as rightly cal­led Gods people, as they that giue you the name of Catholike Church, are called the Christian world. Nay, bate me an ace of that, I pray you: vnlesse you can likewise shew by predictions of the Prophets, and correspondence of Luther, the reprobation of the Christian world in these dayes, as we all sée the reprobation of the people of God the Iewes in those dayes. Besides that you haue great reason forsooth, to require that the Iewes should haue vsed those names which they neuer heard of, or els you not to be tryed now by them after their institution, receiuing, and vni­uersall vsing.

And yet againe you will néedes haue the name from vs. Ar. 95. For why might not our Church, when it was most hidden (you say) be as rightly called Catholike, as the Church of the Apostles, when it was so particular, that it was conteined in the narrow bondes of Iury? For (you say) it is not called Catholike, because it should be euery where (for that it neuer was, nor neuer shal be) But be­cause that wheresoeuer it be in partes, it is one body of Christ. I reade of many old Heretikes, that gaue many interpretations of that name, to draw it to them selues: but you are the first, to my knowledge, that said, because it is vna, therefore it is called Catholica. The old fathers in their Créede were of another mea­ning, when they said distinctly: I beleue One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolike (that is, Romane) Church. No Sir, S. Augustine tel­leth [Page 280] you another interpretation: Aug. de vn. Eccl. ca. 2. Ecclesia vti (que) vna est, quam ma­iores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, vt ex ipso nomine ostende­rent, quia per totum est. Secundum totum enim, cath olun Grecè di­citur. There is no doubt but onely one Church, euen that same, which our Auncetors named Catholica, to declare by the very name it selfe, that she is ouer all, to wit, beginning at Hierusalem, and from thence growing ouer all Nations, continually till the ende of the world, when hauing taken in the fulnesse of Nati­ons, she shall be wholly assumpted in glorie. And therefore your Church, neither when it was hidden as you imagine, neither now that it is open as we all sée (God hide it againe) can be called Catholike, Au. Callat. 3. diei. nu. 2. post. Col­lat. c. 27.28. Epist. 48. because (as S. Augustine so often resoneth against the Donatistes) you do not communicate with totius Orbis Ecclesia, the Church of the whole world, but haue seperated your selues from it, from the Church (I say) which beganne in Iurie, and groweth on to this day, and therefore as well then in the begin­ning, as any time after, was the same and had the same name, as the trée of musterdséede is the trée of musterdséede, whether it be growen litle or mikle.

Ar. 95. Pur. 14.But what a thing is this, that you speake with the spirite of the Donatist, and say? The Popish Church is not in euery part of the world: For Mahomets sect is in the greatest part: Many coun­treys are Idolaters: and the most parte of them that professe the name of Christ, are not in the felowship of the Popish Church. It is iumpe the argument of Cresconius: Aug. cōtra Cresc. li. 3. ca. 63. Argumentaris, quod ideo nobis non totus Orbis communicet, &c. ‘Thou makest this ar­gument ( saith S. Augustine) that therefore the whole world doth not communicate with vs, because as yet either many men there are of the Barbarous Nations which haue not yet beleued in Christ, or many Heresies vnder the name of Christ, abhorring from the communion of our felowship.’ The full answere therof you may reade ther in S. Augustine. Although I alleage almost nothing, but onely answere, my length groweth tedious to my selfe, and I feare, to the Reader also: not for any substance of your argumentes, but for the multitude of your trifles, to say the least and best of them. As againe wher you say (like non plus) that Most Papistes will confesse, Ar. 69. that many thinges in their Church haue neede of reformation, as not being vniuersally perfect, and [Page 281] that it is halting in many thinges from the trueth of Gods word, neither yet dispersed ouer all the World, but conteyned in a cor­ner of Europa. and therefore it is not by S. Augustines rule, the Catholike Church? Is yours then by that rule, the Catholike Church? As the Iewes care not, if none be Christ, so that Iesus be not Christ: euen so you reason like men, that care not if none be the Church, so that the Romane be not. O miserable People that must haue such Leaders. The Church now may vouchsaue to be so spoken of by you, when you speake no better (here cap. 3.) of the same Church also in S. Augustines time. But we tell you, with the wordes of S. Augustine (for we confesse no more then he also doth) by you alleaged, wher he repeateth the Créede: August. de Gē. ad [...]. imperfect. ca. 1. ‘Con­stitutam ab illo Matrem Ecclesiam, That the Holy Ghost being geuen, founded the Church our Mother, quae Catholica dicitur, her that is called Catholike, ex eo quia vniuersaliter perfecta est, et in nullo claudicat, et per totum orbem diffusa est, of this, be­cause she is vniuersally perfect, and halteth in nothing ( though the Donatistes and other like Heretikes do neuer so much triumph in that interpretation) and is spredde ouer all the World, in ma­ner aforesaide.’ ‘Both interpretations agrée to our Mother, and we claime them accordingly, saith S. Augustine and we, where­as the Heretikes are compelled to renounce the later, which is the more proper and playnly peremptorie, and to shrewde them selues in the former most vainly, saying, that the Church is cal­led Catholike, non ex totius orbis communione, Epist. 48. sed ex obserua­tione omnium Praeceptorum Diuinorum, atque omnium Sacra­mentorum, Not of the whole worlds communion, but for the ke­ping of all Gods commaundements and of all the Sacraments.’

By all this wrankling you winne nothing but this, that you declare thereby the name to be ours, and not yours: as also by this, that you defend your felowes, for saying Vniuersal in stéede of Catholike, and Congregation in stéede of Church: Ar. 67. because (say you) they are so in English, and are not els commonly vnderstan­ded. You should haue said rather, that they are so in Latine, and then by your wise conceite, one should tel the people of the gathe­ring ouer all, and they would vnderstand that better then the Ca­tholike Church, because these be Gréeke words. Euen as if you would not name Baptisme vnto them, but rather Ablution or [Page 282] washing: Apostasie the cause of chaun­ging these vvords. nor Heretike, but a chuser: nor Schismatike, but a Cutter. No my masters, it was not for more perspicuitie, it was not, that you chaunged those knowen and worne names: it was be­cause they were preoccupated by vs afore you were borne, and therefore were as a great blocke in your way, to be remoued a­fore you could enter into the Christian hartes that you were to seduce. for which cause, your Apostasie hath gone about to chaūge & trāslate more Greke names also thē those as you know, Priest, Bishop, &c. though they were vnderstanded well enough before.

Motiue 2. Article. 19.7. Heretikes.

The second rule is of the name Heretikes, being the contrarie to the name Catholikes, and therefore we néede now stand lesse about it: That such as are of Christian men commonly called and knowen by the name of Heretikes, are alwayes Here­tikes in very déede. To this Fulke agéeth not, but correcteth it, saying: Ar. 65. Those that by (true) Christians haue bene called and coun­ted for Heretikes, haue proued so in deed, (and therefore say I, Aerius, Iouinianus, and Vigilantius, were Heretikes in déede, because you confesse here cap. 2. that they were true Christians, who called and counted them so. But this not being for your vauntage, you inferre otherwise.) And therefore the Papists, be­ing called and counted Heretikes of true Christians, without doubt are Heretikes in dede Euen as vndoubtedly as you be true Christians, that so call them. That briefly is our answere to your rule, though you answere it your selfe also, where you say, The Diuell stirred vp Tyrants, Heretikes, Popes, Saracenes, and Turkes, Ar. 78. to destroy the Church, who that counteth Popes to be Heretikes, would so diuide?

What is now your answere to our rule? Forsoth, The true Christians were of the Arrian people (who were people cōmon­ly called Christians) called and taken for Heretikes. What is that to the purpose? but were they commonly called Heretikes, euen so much as of the Arrians? Euen as much as we now be cōmon­ly called Heretikes of you. For you know pardie your selues, that if you should in your talke and writing say, Heretikes, sim­pliciter as we do: you could not be vnderstanded to speake of vs, so as we be with all perspicuitie vnderstanded to speake of you. Yea, but although we be called Heretikes (you say here cap. 7. pa. [Page 283] 80.) yet in that our faith agreeth with the word of God, we proue our selues in dede to be no Heretikes. Witnesse here cap. 8. where al your deprauatiōs of Gods word are reuealed to your cōfusion.

8. Protestantes. Motiue 3. Article. 18.

The third rule is vpon the name Protestantes, and such like: That they haue always bene Heretikes, who haue had such new names in respect of their seuerall faith and doctrine: and always Schismatikes, who haue had the like in respect of their seuerall cōmunion: namely, if they were obstinate therin. To this Fulke answereth: We desire most of all to be called Christians, Ar. 65.66. coūting it a most honorable name: although in reproch we be called of you, Caluinists and Lutherans. As the true Christians of old were of the Arrians called in reproch Homousians, and Athanasians. I told you in my Demaunds, that to be like rather to this that Luther inuented to call vs Papists. For we were, you know, be­fore Luther began, as they were before the Arrians began. And neither they, nor we, then without a name. What other thē was our name, but the name of Christians? In vnitie of y ^e name were al together at that time. And when afterward Arius, and Luther began their partes, what offended the old Christians, I pray you, to léese their old name? And kéeping their old name, what néede had the Arians to call them Homousians and Athanasians, or Luther to call them Papistes? was it of necessitie, or of re­proch? And therefore on the other side, the name Christians being preoccupated, how could men talke of Arrius his faction, or of Luthers factiō, without some new names, as Ariās & Lutherās? Therefore it was not of reproch, but of necessitie: in so much that your owne side also in theire talke, in theire Edictes, and in theire bookes, specially one against another, are constrained to vse those or other Names. But we are not constrained, nor do not call our selues Papistes: but we call our selues still, as before, Christians, or (for more distinction & perspicuitie, Pacia. Ep. 1. & 2. ad Sy. Habetur in Bibliothe­ca edita Paris. 1575 when we deale with you) Catholike christiās. For (as S. Pacianus saith passing finely in his Epistle De Catholico Nomine, to Sympronianus a Nouatian, though he thē tooke him to be a Montanist) Christianus mihi nomē est, Catholicus vero cognomē. Christian is my name, but Catholike is my surname. And therefore you may lōg desire y ^e [Page 284] name of Christians, before you get it. The great count that you make of it, is to our glory whose name it is.

But this is notable, that howsoeuer you be ashamed of those names, you confesse two other names, (graunting withall that they which choose to themselues such new names, Ar. 87. are none of the Catholike Church) to wit, Gospellers and Protestants. Special­ly where you say: Ar. 65. As for the name of Protestantes came first of them that made protestation against the decree of Spires in Ger­manie, (Anno 1529. twelue yeres after Luther began) and from that time hath bene attributed to professers of the Gospell. Of whom soeuer it first came, it is within the compasse of our rule. And therfore you had good cause to adde and say: Which name they do not so much delight in, as you do in the name of Papists. We delight euen so much in the name of Papists, as in y ^e inuen­tion of your Patriarke Luther. Howbeit we say not that a Ca­tholike may to the Heretikes deny him selfe to be a Papist: no otherwise then to the Arrians, to be an Homousian. If you Sa­cramentaries or Caluinistes delight not in the name of Prote­stants, the Lutherans do, and stand as earnestly against you vp­pon their senioritie for that name, as we do stand agaynst you both vpon our senioritie for the name of Christians & of Catho­likes. But your confessing of the name, on the one side, and yet saying on the other side, that your true Christians delight not in it, Ar. 65. Infra ca. 11. cont. 50. Ar. 65. as also that they desire to be called Christians, without choo­sing any other name, I reserue to the place of your cōtradictions.

But of vs you say as much: They can not be content with the name of Christians, but choose vnto them selues new names af­ter the calling of their Sect-masters: as Franciscanes, Domini­canes, Benedictins, Gilbertins, Augustinians, Scotistes, Thomistes, Albertistes, &c. This is answered in my Demaunds & Motiues (as all the rest also in effect.) Yet I say againe to it: A Sect im­porteth a diuision. Now what diuision is betwene those Catho­likes, and vs the other Catholiks that haue none of those names? Be we not all of one faith, and of one communion? So easily is your accusation wyped away, and not onely from vs (I say) who haue none of those names, but also from our brethren who haue them. They be not of that sort as the name of Christians, and therefore (by Logike you know) not priuatiuely opposite there­vnto. [Page 285] But suche are these: Arrians, Pelagians, Lutherans, Cal­uinistes, Protestantes. Because being before, of Christ, of his vnitie, of his communion, all called Christians: they for some matter, either of faith or other, diuiding themselues frō the same, follow the communion or felowship of Arius, of Pelagius, of Luther, of Caluin, of those Protesters. Why then are those our brethren so named, if S. Augustine, S. Benet, S. Frauncis, S. Dominike: if S. Thomas, and Scotus, were not Sect-masters? I answere: the first sort, because they professe to liue after y ^e rules of those principall Abbots: the other sort, because they hold cer­taine Scholasticall questions (which either can not be matters of faith, or els as yet be not, because they be not yet defined by the Church) according to the opinions of those principall Schole Doctors.

9. Conuersion of Heathen Nations. Motiue 25. Article. 1.

My nienth Demaund doth note, who are (after the Apostles) the Conuerters of all Nations from Paganisme, (whom the Scripture calleth, the witnesses of Christ to the extremes of the earth. Act. 1.) to wit, we, and not the Protestants. According to Tertullians most singular obseruation, speaking of Heretikes, and saying: ‘As touching the ministerie of the word, Tertul. de Praesc. what should I speake? considering that this is their endeuour, non Ethnicos conuertendi, sed nostros euertendi: Not to conuert the Heathen, but to subuert our people. This glory they do more seeke after, Si stantibus ruinam, non si iacentibus eleuationem operentur, To work ruine to such as are standing, and not raysing to such as are lying’. And so Fulke may glory, I do not denie, as he doth also, where he saith: Ar. 33. Ar. 95. The Land of Bohemia was conuerted by Iohn Hus, and Hieromyn of Prage. Againe in another place: And at this day the most part of Europe, is conuerted from Idolatry, He­resie, and Antichristianitie (such he counteth the Catholike faith) vnto the same true faith that we mainteine: as in England, Scot­land, Ireland, Fraunce, Germanie, Denmark, Suetia, Bohemia, Po­lonia, by publike authoritie: in Spaine and Italie, a great number vnder persecution and tyrannie. That is your glory in déede, that you haue subuerted many in many Christian nations. We can not so glory, nor you can not shew that we haue done the like in any Nation, although you say with a brasen face, Ar. 3. It is certayne [Page 286] that the Popish Church hath peruerted and corrupted al parts of the Latine or Westerne Church, with Idolatry and false religion. But that you haue conuerted any Nation from Paganisme, you do not, nor you can not boast. But the truth is, although you say that we haue not cōuerted the Nations to Christes faith, Pur. 460. but per­uerted all nations from the faith of Christ, that our Church, that is to say, the Cōmunion of S. Peters Sée Apostolike, or y ^e church beginning visibly at Hierusalem, and visibly growing on to this day, is she that conuerteth al Pagane Nations to be Christians, not only at this present, so many nations of both the Indies, and in Afrike: item so many others that this last thousand yeres haue bene conuerted, thrée wherof you name, Liuonia, Prussia, Lith­uania, Ar. 3.85. with this lying censure, that we conuerted them by force of armes, rather then by preaching and teaching: but also all them that were conuerted either in the 500. yeres afore that, or also in the Apostles time it selfe. Against this cleare trueth what mist haue you to cast? Forsooth, not we, but certaine Heretikes & Schismatikes conuerted some nations to the profession of Chri­stes name, Ar. 2.3. though to false religion. Do you graunt that it was to false religion, & yet bring that for an instance? It is an euident argument that you had no instance in the nations that we cōfesse to haue bene conuerted to the true faith of Christ. Was not this scope inough for you, & reason inough for vs when we say, (as in my Demaund you may sée) that it was our Church, by which all Nations were conuerted or corrected to the true faith of Christ?

And yet also for your said instancies, where you quote your Authors, they shall be answered. In the meane time I quote to you Eus. li. 2. ca. 1. reporting the conuersion of Ethiopia to haue bene of the right stampe, according to Psal. 67. and Act. 8. which two places he there doth cite: Ar. 2.3. because you to shew, that the true Church of Christ did not conuert all, do say, For in Aethiopia there are yet people conuerted by the False Apostles, whiche taught circumcision & obseruation of the Law: in which heresie they continue vnto this day. Who should tell that better then the Ethiopians themselues? whom we sée to haue their house at Rome, and to be Catholikes. And your selfe do saye in another place, Pur. 357. that their Liturgie doth sauour playnly the vsage of the Greke Church. Their Emperour did his obediēce to Paulus III, [Page 287] and also an Ethiopian Abbot, which Abbot in his Epistle dedica­torie before the rites of their Baptisme & Liturgie, doth expresly inueigh against them that did falsly report of them as not Ca­tholikes and obedient subiects to the Sée Apostolike, much reioy­sing therein, and desiering that they might be so taken. Howbeit I denie not, but there might be some corruption, though not of heresie peraduenture, but for lacke of frée conuersing (béeing in­tercluded by the Turkes and Saracenes, and often oppressed by Tyrants and Infidels of their owne) with the Romane Church, ‘In qua semper ab ijs qui sunt vndi (que), Ire. li. 3. ca. 3 conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio, In which Church ( saith S. Irenée, that is, by repayring to it) the faithfull that be all about, haue alwayes pre­serued thē selues in the tradition that cōmeth from the Apostles.’

And where you say for another instance, Ar. 2.3. Pur. 337. It is manifest by al Hi­stories, that the Nations of the Alanes, Gothes, & Vandales, were first conuerted by the Arrians: in so saying you declare that you neuer read the Ecclesiasticall Histories, presuming notwithstan­ding to write against these Articles which are in maner nothing els but certayne obseruations therof. Reade Socrates li. 2. ca. 32. (and not onely li. 4. ca. 27. and Sozomenus li. 6. ca. 37. but speci­ally Theodoret li. 4. ca. 32. who, as a Catholike Bishop, of pur­pose to take from the Arrians that vayne bragge of theirs, she­weth, that the Gothes were first Catholikes, and not (as you say) first conuerted by the Arrians: but, onely by false informations and to much trusting of their Bishop Vlphilas, béeing another Balaam, ledde out of the way.

You talke also of the Nations that were cōuerted by the Dona­tists & Nouatians. Pur. 337. But we shall know your Histories & authors hereafter. Againe you say: And it is also manifest by Histories, Ar. 3. that the Grecians (whō the Papists count no part of their church, but Schismatikes) conuerted the Moscouites first of all. Did the Grecians conuert them since their Schisme? O great Historian. The truth is, there was great emulation then in the Grecians a­gainst the Latins, but not schisme nor heresie as yet, nor long af­ter, and therefore of our Church they were then: Howbeit it is not the true faith, nor our religion (as you say truely) which the Moscouites haue, but such as they them selues did list to receiue, with many qualifications and modifications of their owne. [Page 288] such was the fruite of the Grecians emulation, and such is the necessitie that S. Peter cast the nette.

But if Histories fayle you, yet one demonstration ex per se notis you haue, to proue, that not we, but you conuerted all true Christian Nations. Ar. 2. And what is that? If the Papist can proue, that we hold not the same faith and trueth, vnto which the A­postles conuerted the Nations, we refuse to be called the Church or Congregation of Christ. The Papist proueth (to omitte a 1000. others of his proufes) that you be Heretikes (and therefore hold not the same faith &c.) by the testimonie of that which your selfe confesse to be the true Church of Christ: here cap. 2. and cap. 3. Againe: We are members (witnesse your Separation, here Dem. 3. Ar. 2.3.) of that Church, which conuerted all Landes in the earth that are conuerted to the true Religion of Christ: and we affirme, that the Apostles taught none other faith in steed of true Christi­anitie, but that which we hold, as we are readie to proue by the word of God. Witnesse here cap. 8. Where all your absurd De­prauations of Gods word are answered, and not that onely, but also shewed by the expresse word of God among other thinges, that the Sacrament of Confirmation went euery whither toge­ther with the Apostles Gospell, as the chiefest point of Christia­nitie, Ar. 3. pag. 145. But no maruaile of your audacitie, to say, we are readie to proue it, considering that you are bold to conclude of this, saying thus: I haue shewed, that our church, holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles, is that which conuerted all Nations to true Religion. Then belike all those Nations were (and are) of your Religion, and you will be content to be tryed by them, as by Afrike (for example) whose Religion we know by Tertullian S. Cyprian, S. Optatus, S. Augustine, &c. Or if you haue better Monumentes of any other Nations Religion, name it, and let vs try it betwene vs. But whosoeuer séeth here cap. 3. how you are faine to charge the true Church, the Primatiue Church, with erring, may easily coniecture, what you dare doe.

Motiue 17.11. Britannie.

Well, we be English men, and therefore in a seuerall De­maund I name our Countrie, England or Britannie, vnto you. Specially because the Prophetes (as you know) speake much of [Page 289] the conuersion of Ilands expresly, and namely of such Ilands as were farthest of: As also because there are extāt such monumēts of our Ilands conuersion and religion, in Tertullian, Origen, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory the Pope, with many o­ther like, and specially in the History of our owne countreyman S Bede.

But here Fulke telleth such English men that list not to be deceiued, Pur. 346. but to see into what faith all Nations were conuerted that were turned by the Apostles, that they were better to consi­der the word of God & the Historie of the Acts of the Apostles: and biddeth vs of so many Nations there recorded, to name one, Pur. 166.332. vnto which Purgatory, or praying and sacrificing for the dead, was taught. You are profoundly seene in the Scriptures, I per­ceiue by this. Why? was the Actes of the Apostles written, to shew, into what faith all Nations were conuerted, that were turned by the Apostles? Nay, is there so much as any mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to any nation of the Gentiles? No syr, that booke was written to shew onely the beginning of the Church (according to the Prophets) to wit, at Hierusalem and among the Iewes, and the taking of it frō them for their deserts, and geuing of it to the Gentils, euen frō Hierusalem the head of the Iewes, to Rome the head of the Gentiles: And there S. Luke endeth it, not caring to tel so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to S. Paule (in whose person this trāslation was wrought, and not in S. Peters, nor any others of the Twelue, for causes to long to be here rendred) ‘ Caesari te o­portet assistere, Thou must stand before the Emperour’. Because his purpose was no more but to shew the new Hierusalem of the Christians, and so to leaue them to it, to know what are the par­ticulars that the Apostles taught. And so withall, you haue one of those Nations named in the Actes, and that no common one, [...]o wit, the Romanes, which receiued of the Apostles not only the Article that you require, but also all the rest which at this time it hath, neither you béeing able by Scripture or otherwise to proue the contrarie so muche as in any one, and we prouing it both a particulars and in the totall summe, partly by Scriptures, partly by other vnauoydable demonstrations.

Well, for all this trigiuersation (by which you sée what you [Page 290] haue wonne) you will yet be content to be tryed by our Britan­nie. Ar. 49. For you confesse, that the Church of the Brytans, or Welch­men, before Augustine came in to conuert the Englishmen An­no 597. continued in the faith of Christ, euen from the Apostles time, Pur. 332. so that for sixe hundred yeres almost this land was neuer voyde of Christians. Go to then, and prescribe vs the forme of this tryall. Proue (you say) that Paule, or Simon, or Taddeus, or Ioseph, or whosoeuer first preached the Gospell in this Iland (in the reigne of Tyberius the Emperour, as Gildas testifieth) taught prayers or sacrifices for the dead: proue it I say, and the daye is yours for euer. In this briefe answere one probation may suf­fice. If you require vs to proue it out of the Scripture, conside­ring that the Scripture doth not tell of our Landes conuersion, you declare your selfe to be but a pratler. If other authors will content you, what greater ones can you aske, then those so ma­ny, whom here cap. 3. pag. 20. you confesse to witnesse that the A­postles, and namely S. Paule (cap. 7. pag. 86.) lefte that Tradi­tion? Another probation thereof you feare, if the Brytaines re­ceiued the faith from Rome of Pope Eleutherius (which is most certayne) as the Englishmen did afterwards, of Pope Grego­rie. And therefore you talke so willingly of the Apostles prea­ching there afore, not considering how that maketh more for vs, in that the Brytaines thereby could iudge the better of the mat­ter, The Britons begun by the Apostles and Romanes, accō ­plished by E­leutherius. and so would not haue receiued from Eleutherius (to whom they sent for their accomplishing) the contrarie of that which the Apostles so litle before had planted among them. Which proba­tion procéedeth aswell, although not the Apostles (which yet I beléeue) but the Christian Romanes (to whom they were then subiect) began the matter, which agayne is most certayne.

But you are so afrayde of Christ our great kings Citie, that is, of Rome, Pur. 371. the Christian Hierusalem, that yet againe you say: It were easie to proue by that controuersie which the Britaynes and the Scottes had against the Saxons about the celebration of Ea­ster, that our Countrey first receiued their conuersion from the East Church, whose ceremonie they did then defende, euen as the East Church did long before against Victor Bishop of Rome. By which it appereth, that this land did neuer receiue the doctrine and ceremonies of the Latine Church, before the time of the [Page 291] Saxons. But this your reason hath no other ground, but onely your owne ignorance in the Historie, as I haue noted ca. 2. pa. 4. Where also you haue an euident demonstration, that the faith of the Britons first, and of the Saxons after, was all one, because the greatest paynt wherein their Bishops differed from S. Au­gustine, was that same about Easter Sonday: in so muche that S. Augustine was very earnest with them to ioyne with him and preach to the Saxons. Which according to your imagina­tion, had bene as wisely done of him, as if we now should moue you (considering that you kéepe Easter when we do) to preache and teach as you do.

All this considered, no man may maruell to sée you in suche a pecke of troubles about the Religion of the Saxons: one while allowing it, as it had bene yours: another while condemning it, Infra ca. 11. cōtrad. 50. because it was ours. Your allowance you vtter in the very same wordes, wherewith here cap. 5. you allow of them that you con­fesse to haue bene the true Church of which all ought to be that would be saued. Thus you say: Pur. 335. All that was then taught the Saxons for Christianitie was not false. For the Bishoppes and Christian teachers of the Brytish nation, whose ayde they (that came from Rome) required, and at last obteined, to the conuer­ting of the Saxons, reteined the foundation of faith Iesus Christ, and the only sacrifice of his death. Againe: Pur. 337. Many things and the principal were true, that were taught vnto the Saxons. Now for vs you confesse, and say: Pur. 346. You thinke it is the surest way to looke to that faith in all points, which this Land first receiued: If men should folow your coūsel, in some things they should folow your faith which you now teach. Namely, Pur.. 335 336. they receiued & vsed vnpro­fitable prayers for the dead, & many other superstitious opiniōs. Neither doth it folow, that all that taught or beleeued those er­rors, so long as they buylded vpon Christ the onely foundation, perished. If the Saxons receiued prayer for the dead, why do you say of the Britaynes (whom erewhile you confessed to haue taught them) that although Gildas accuse the Priests of his time for seldome Sacrificing, Pur. 332. and although the error of praying for the dead were receiued in other places, yet whether this Countrie were free from it, I am not able to say, nor you to proue, that it was infected with it?

[Page 292]Because of these poynts which you confesse, and many others that you can not denie: Ar. 49. therefore now the English Nation recei­ued their Religion first from Rome, at such time as religion there was very corrupt: The Saxons were conuerted by superstitious Romanists: Pur. 337.348. Yea (as some thinke) they were not so much conuer­ted from Gentilitie to Christ, as peruerted from pure Christianity to superstition. Sée I pray you, they were not onely Christians before, but so pure as no other Christian Nation in the world, if you remember what he said of all others here cap. 3.

And yet againe on the other side, were their corruption by those Romanes neuer so great, Pur. 335.336.346. Ar. 49. yet such was the faith that was receiued euen of the Saxons, that you can shew vs if we will, playne and pithy confutations (at that time) of many poyntes of Popish do­ctrine, and namely (that which we count the chiefe) the Real pre­sence and transubstantiation, yea and direct inuectiues against the Pope and all Popish doctrine. Mary in dede that were worth the sight. Do you graunt, that in some things. and namely prayer for the dead, they receiued the faith which we now teach: & yet haue you cards of thē to shew not only against many points of Popish doctrine, but against all popish doctrine? And what be your cardes? Diuers monumentes of antiquitie, (as Prayers, Psalmes, Homilies, with diuers other smal Treatises and pamphlets) in the old English or Saxons tongue, in old English written hande, and namely that printed Saxon Homily, which was appoynted to be read at Easter. Belike they were of S. Bedes making (for so we reade in his life) that he compiled many godly things in the vul­gar tongue, and not only in Latine, and his Homilies to this day are read in the Churches,) or rather of some his Elders, such as he in his Historie maketh mention of, because it was one hun­dred yeres after our first conuersion, before Bede him selfe did florish. Is this possible, thinke you? No, no. Non sunt rectè diui­sa temporibus tibi Daue haec. In S. Bedes story, and in all his works, and al other writers of his time, and before his time you find nothing against the Pope, nor against any one poynt of his doctrine. But cleane contrarie we finde so playnly for the Pope and for euery poynt of his doctrine, that you are faine to put the reuelation of Antichrist, and the disparition of the Church (here cap. 2.) at the very time of our conuersion. For which cause also [Page 293] you refuse (as we saw before) to be tryed by Bedes historie, Pur. 333. tel­ling our countreymen, that they were better to consider the Acts of the Apostles: and saying in another place, that you waye not worth a slye that which D. Allen telleth out of Beda. For who séeth not there our Religion most playnly, and namely for Beda hi. li. 1. ca. 24. Greg. li. 12. epist. 15. the Popes authoritie, and Beda li. 1. ca. 25.27.29. Masse, the very poynts that your Saxon Homilies do impugne? But what saye we then to those godly monuments? Who can not say and sée, that if they were such as you make them, they should not all this while be kept vnprinted, neither should that which was printed, so soone and so diligently haue bene called in againe: for why? either they conteine not suche matter as you report, or they be but of some of these late Wiclesistes making, such as (by your owne saying) are yet com­mon to be seene. Disproue my coniecture if it be wrong, Ar. 34. and then you shall sée whether I can reply.

10. 12. Myracles and Visions.

Unto these two Demaunds I couple two others, of Myracles, Motiue 5.6.7. and of Uisions, noting that the very Scriptures do by them com­mend vnto vs Christ him selfe, his Apostles with their successors the conuerters of all Nations, and their doctrine: and saying ac­cordingly, that the Miracles and visions of our Church, are infi­nite, Pur. 166.331.333. Greg. Dial. li. 4. ca. 24. Et Epist. l. 7 ep. 30. li. 9. ep. 58. & mora. l. 27. c. 6. in Iob. 36. Damas. ser. de defūctis. Beda hist. li. 1. c. 31. l. 3. c. 13. li. 4. c. 21. li. 5. c. 13. alleaged also by the Doctors against the Iewes also & Pay­nims, to conuert them to Christ: Wheras the Protestants haue not all this while bene able so much as to heale a lame horse, though Luther and Caluine (as we reade in their liues, namely set out in French) attempted wonders. Now what saith Fulke to this? The examples out of Gregorie, Damascene, Bede, you may spare for your frendes: there is none of vs that maketh great account of them. Againe: I force litle what Augustine (our A­postle, of whose Miracles and holines S. Gregorie also, whose Monke he was, doth testify, as also of his learning, Hebrew psal­ters written with his owne hand, which you count a high poynt, &c.) wrought to confirme his errors: neither do I waye worth a flye that long tale you tell out of Beda, of him that had his chey­nes fallen of in Masse time: that credulous and superstitious age had many such fayned Myracles. Againe: You leape but 600. yeres from Christ, to Gregories Dialogues, from which time I wil [Page 294] not deny but you may haue great store of such stuffe: as you haue miracles now in Flaūders of the honest woman of the old Bayly in London. Happy it were for you, and you were so honest. Nei­ther when she was in Heresie, was she vnhonest for ought that I haue hard, and the Miracle euen as I tell it in my Motiues, is most gloriously knowen at Bruxelles. You should haue better played the Doctor of Diuinitie, if you could haue informed the simple how to know fained Miracles from vnfained: and why Miracles vnfained may not be after S. Gregories time aswell as before. You will tell them (as here cap. 2.) that straight after his time was the Reuelation of Antichrist, Pur. 336.338. and that these were and are his lying signes and wonders, 2. Thes. 2. such as errours had alwaies great plentie to establish them withall. This is the very bones and marrow of your new Gospell: and yet all worm-eaten and rotten. For first, what Scripture telleth you that after the Reuelation of Antichrist (supposing it at that time whiche you wold haue) there shal be none but fained Miracles? Apoc. 11. telleth me the cleane contrary. Secondly, why cannot you for the defence of Christ his true Miracles against the Infidels, discouer the fainednes of Antichrist his wonders, whereas we discouer the lying of all fond Miracles which sundry errours (though not in such great plentie) haue pretended? Thirdly, what Scripture telleth you, that the time of Antichrists reuelation was so long agoe? It telleth me the cleane contrary, as I haue most euident­ly declared cap. 8. pag. 125. Discouering therewithall your grosse falsation of the Scripture to racke it to your blasphemous pur­pose. A wise Reuelation, that was yet so many hundred yeres hidden, and the partie reueled, taken yet for Christ his owne Ui­care? Consider their absurdnesse. No, no syr: you that be mysticall Antichristes, may of fooles be mistaken, and thought to be the Ministers of Christ Iesus: but your Lord in proper person shall shew himselfe openly ynough, and expressely against the onely Christ, our Lord and Sauiour Iesus, not so much as desiring to be thought of his side. Fourthly, what say you then at the least to our in­finite Miracles afore S. Gregories time? as those, whiche S. Augustine De Ciuitate Dei. li. 22. ca. 8. reherseth to the Pa­ganes, wrought by the Relikes of the first Martyr S. Steuen, af­ter many particulars, euen six Resuscitations of the dead, saying [Page 295] generally: ‘Si enim Miracula sanitatum (vt alia taceam) modò velim scribere, quae per hunc Martyrem, id est, gloriosissimum Stephanum, facta sunt in colonia Calamensi, & in Nostra, plu­rimi conficiendi sunt libri: For if I would write but the Myracles of healings (to omitte the others) which by this Martyr, that is, by the moste glorious S. Stephen, haue bene wrought, but in two Cities, Calama, and Hippo, ( where his familiar friende Possidonius, and him selfe were Bishoppes) very many bookes were to be made. What Scripture haue you agaynst these My­racles?’ Either you must remoue the comming of Antichrist so muche higher (which a litle thing would make you to do) or els you must bring your blind followers some text that testifieth his lying Myracles to go also so long before his comming, and the workers of them for him to be the very Martyrs and ministers and true Church of Christ him selfe. For els how will you nowe defend that our Church hath no true Myracles, Ar. 85. but the power of Antichrist in lying signes and wonders?

As for your censure of Myracles and Uisions, that what soe­uer is consonant to the word of God, is to be receiued, Pur. 163.333. that which is not agreable therewith, is to be detested, although an Angell from heauen were the bringer of it: as though these were a­gaynst the trueth of God vttered in the holy Scriptures. All this hangeth but vpon the twyned thréede of your owne poore worde, though you say neuer so much, that it is briefly and playnely so set foorth in the worde of God, as I haue shewed in the eyght chapter, answering all the textes that you peruert for Onely Scripture, & namely that text of an Angel from heauen, pag. 110. And the place also of Saint Augustine, chapter 9. pag. 181. Pur. 333. In so much that where you say therevpon, He will not allowe (Myracles and Visions) for sufficient proofes, without the autho­ritie of the Scriptures, you do shamefully abuse your Reader, for he saith expresly, that whatsoeuer such things are done in the Ca­tholike Church (as he there also mentioneth many generally, and some particularly) therefore they are to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholike Church. And you graunt that these of S. Augustines reporting, were done in the Catholike Church: Ergo, by S. Augustine euen in that place, you must al­low them, and so condemne your owne Religion.

Motiue 26. • 13.15. Honour of Crosses and of Saintes. , • 14.16. Vertue of Crosses and of Saintes. , and • 17. Exorcismes. 18. Destroying of Idolatrie. 

In the next fiue Demaundes I report certaine argumentes made of the old Doctors in their bookes, against the Paynims, to proue that Christ is God, and not their Idolles, by certaine pointes of our Religion, as the Soueraigne Honor both of his Crosse, and of his Saintes, and the miraculouse power not one­ly of them two, but also of his Church in her ordinarie exorcis­mes: requiring the Protestantes to helpe here the Paynims, if they be eyther able, or not ashamed, and also in the next De­maund bidding them open their eyes at length, and beholde, that our Religion hath bene and is the bane of Idolatrie, yea and those very pointes of our Religion, which their peruerse blind­nes counteth and calleth Idolatry it selfe. To all this Fulke had nothing, but like a Cuckow, You haue not (saith he) destroyed I­dolatry, Pur. 460. but set vp Idolatrie. Not waying what I tell him accor­ding to the prophets, that we haue so throughly conuerted al Na­tions from Idolatrie, that we haue made them forget also the names of their Idolles.

Motiue 41. Article 10.19 Kinges.

My 19. Demaund is of the Christian Emperours and Kinges, of whose conuersion together the Scripture speaketh expresly, and of the conuersion of Nations. The chiefe of them Fulke na­meth here cap. 2. and confesseth (with vs and for vs) that they were of the true Church in the first 600. yeares: yea and chalen­geth them to haue bene of his Religion, no lesse then we doe. But what proufes doth he bring thereof? Not one. Neither doth he answere so much as any one of our proufes, no not that which D. Allen alleageth, Pur. 429. how Constantinus honored the Sentence of the Priestes Councell (at Nice) tanquam a deo prolatam, as pro­nounced of God. Pur. 313. Ruff. li. 1. ca. 5. yea he is faine to confesse, that in the burial of Constantinus him selfe, the very first Christian Em­perour, Eus. in vita Const. li. 4 c. 58.59.60.66.71. there was prayer for his soule, according to the errour of the time, being the time of the first Nicen Counsell. In Eusebius is much more, Sacrifice also for his soule, with the intercession of the Apostles, in whose honor it was offered at their Relikes, [Page 297] in their Temple, Pur. 312. and all by the procurement of Constātinus him self. Again, That the Emperour Theodosius Iunior prayed for his fathers and mothers soules, Arcadius and Eudoria. But the storie saith not (quoth he) that he prayed to S. Chrysostome for them, as M. Allen thinketh. The storie is Theodorets, and his words are these: Hist. Trip. li. 10. c. 26. ex Theo. l. 5. c. 35.36 Pur. 222.226. Amb. super obitum Theod. And he setting his face and eyes vpon the shrine of that holy man, made supplications for his parentes, and prayed (him) vt veniam illis tribueret, that he would pardon them the iniuries which of ignorance they had done him in working his death. Againe, as touching Honorius of the west, brother to the said Arcadius of the East, wher S. Ambrose saith, ‘ Eius principis (The­odosij Senioris) et proximè conclamauimus Obitum, et nunc quadragesimum diem celebramus, assistente sacris Altaribus Honorio Principe, We finished of late (vpon the seuenth day) this Princes Obite (Theodotius Senior their father) and now we ce­lebrate his fourtyth day, our Prince Honorius standing by the sacred Altares. To this Fulke had nothing, but partly to repre­hend the thing as superstitious both in the Bishop and in the Em­perour, partely to inueigh blindly against D. Allens translation.’ For Ambrose speaketh not (he saith) of his fortyth dayes minde, but of the solemnitie of his funerall kept 40. dayes togeather. As though the fortyth day is not one of the fortie, and yet also how playnly he expresseth the singulare solemnitie of the fortyth day, as of the Obite before, saying, ‘ And now we celebrate his fortyth day’, whereas others vse to kepe the Thirde day and the Thir­tith, (which was and is the vse of the Romane Church:) But the Church of Millaine kept the seuenth day, and the fortyth.

Al this considered, who seeth not, that aswel the Catholike Em­perours within the first 600. yeres be against him, as the others of later tymes: and therefore that it is but a cast of his facing & deceiuing arte, that he saith: Ar. 33.51. Before the generall Defection (and Reuelation of Antichrist) it is an easye matter to name you the Emperours and Princes of our Church, as Constantine the great, See the impu­dent Heretike, them vvh [...]m he condemned be­fore. Iouinianus, Valentinianus, Theodosius, Arcadius, Honorius, Martianus, Iustinianus, Mauritius, & diuers other. But when the Kings of the earth had cōmitted fornicatiō with the great Whore of Babylō (as the holy ghost foresheweth Apo. 17. & 18.) it is no preiudice to our cause, if we cannot shew any of them, that haue [Page 298] maintained our Religion. Your malicious and ignorāt setting of the Defection & Antichrists reuealing, at the yere 607, I haue cōfuted cap. 8. pag. 126. by the Scriptures most manifestly. But that you poynt the same time for the Kinges of the earth to haue fornicated with her, your ignorance and malice surmounteth it selfe, as it is euidēt by that which I say there pag. 126. that Ba­bylon is this world frō the beginning to the ending thereof, and called a Whore for that it hath such alluremēts, wherevpon the same S. Iohn exhorteth vs in his Epistle, 1. Ioan 2. and saith: ‘ Loue not the world nor the thinges that are in the world. The world is transi­torie, and also the cōcupiscence of it.’ And therefore in his Apoca­lipse, he maketh her to sit vpon all the earthly & worldly Kinges that euer tooke or shall take her parte against Gods Church. But your blindnes could finde no earthly Kinges in the world but within these last 900. yeares: yea none to be the Kinges of the Earth, but those that be the Kinges of the Church, and their for­nicatiō to consist In humbly adoring her, Esa. 49.60. ‘ & licking the very dust of her feete’, which they are cōmaunded by the Prophet to do vn­der paine of Damnation. Ar. 17. Discipline. And thereupon D. Allen told you, that to be the true Church, Which exerciseth Discipline vpon offen­ders in all degrees, And that al true the Christian Kings haue and doe obey her accordingly: which is an vnuincible argument for vs against you, in this Demaund.

And yet you haue Kings on your side, also since the Reuelation of Antichrist: Ar. 33.34.32. The Grecian Emperours that were Image-brea­kers: Charles the great, who wrote a booke against Images, and called Bertrame to declare his mind vpon the Real presence and transubstantiation: and those Princes that defended their maried Priests. But least we should obiect, that it was but in one or two poynts, that these did fauour you: Edward the third defended Wickleue. Also Zisca & Procopius defended the Bohemians: and George king of Bohemia was depriued of his kingdome by the Pope, for defending the Protestants An. 1466. Which is wel to­wards an hundred yeres before y ^e name of Protestants (by your own confession here Dem. 8.) and much more before the religion of the Protestants, was coyned. For though you say, Wickleue, I wene, you will not deny but he was of our Church and Religion, yet you may sée in my 40. Dem. that in déede he was not, neither [Page 299] also the Bohemians or Hussits. But that Edward the third was a Wickleuist, who euer heard? though I denie not, but that Ca­tholike Princes are often times passing negligent in their office and othe, to extirpate Heresies, vntill by God and his Churches admonition on the one side, and by the wast (on thother side) that Heretikes in time doe make both spiritually and temporally of all Common wealthes, they be spurred therevnto. The like ab­surd ignoraunce in stories, or rather malice, you and your bre­thren declare, in saying that fonde booke against Images to be Charles the greates, who was cleane contrarie, Cop. Dial. 4. c. 18.19. Sander. de Imag. li. 2. ca. 5. an enimie of the Image-breakers, as is at large & learnedly declared in M. Copes Dialogues. Neither is it Carolus Magnus, but Carolus rex, brother to Lotharius the Emperor An. 840. (by Trithemius) to whō Bertrame wrote De corpore & sanguine Domini. Neither was that (as the learned thinke for good causes) this Hereticall booke which Oecolampadius set foorth vnder Bertrames name. And is not this a substantiall reason, He declared that he liked not the Real presence and Transubstantiation, in that he called Bertrame to declare his mind of that matter? How much better may I reason, that both the Emperour or King, and all Christen­dome held the Real presence and transubstantiation, because this Bertrame durst not but so timerously & about the bush (after the maner of all heretikes in the beginning) go against it, as we sée in that booke? No no, syr: As I said before of Nations, so I say of Princes: If any were euerted, he might in some thing fall on your side. But those Princes in al countries that were cōuerted from Paganisme, & also their Successors, that continued in their steppes, were in no poynt yours, but ours in all things.

20 In all Persecutions. Motiue 15. Article. 7.

My 20. Dem. is of the persecutions both before y ^e Emperours became Christians, & also afterwards whē some of thē were per­uerted againe with Apostasie or Heresie: saying, that the Reli­gion which we reade of in those times, béeing the Religion of all Martyrs, and (by Fulkes confession here cap. 2. pag. 4. Pur. 258.312. Ar. 23.24.25.) of y ^e true Church, is in al poynts ours, and in no one poynt y ^e Protestants. And to this he hath nothing, but only this, that all true saints held the foundation Iesus Christ, (which we do in his sense, & he doth not in the true sense, as I shewed cap. 5. and therefore forsooth [Page 300] it is proued that they all were of his Church: notwithstanding he is fayne to say, that some of them buylded straw and stubble vpon the foundation, they were ours so playnly in many things, as he confesseth cap. 3. yea and in all things, as I shew cap. 9. In so much as they haue scraped most of their names out of the Cal­lender, wherof I shall speake more Dem. 46.

Motiue 33. Article. 14.21. Churches.

In the 21. Demaund I chalenge for ours the auncient Chri­stian churches with their furniture both afore and after the con­uersion of the Romane Emperours: also in our country namely, as in all others. And Fulke no lesse chalengeth them to his side, here cap. 2. pag. 6. But before we come to the particulers, let vs see his answere to D. Allens argument: What if it were graunted that all Churches (that now remayne, Ar. 53. Pur. 339.340. that he addeth, whereas D. Allen speaketh generally) were buylded by Papists, and for Po­pish vses: what haue you wonne thereby? As much as néedeth, I thinke. Why not? For the same chalenge might the Idolaters haue made to the Apostles: Shew vs a Temple in all the world, that was not buylded by Idolaters and to mainteine Idolatrie? Were that the same chalenge, I pray you? The Apostles re­nounced both those Temples, and that Religion: you renounce Popish religion: but do you also renounce al Churches that now remayne? If you do, then you renounce also the Churches of the first 600. yeres, for innumerable of them (as at Rome, &c.) now also remaine. But because you may not leaue to vs the Churches of that time also, for feare of afterclaps: you thinke good to come to the matter, and to say: But for all your bragges, we are able to shew, that such Churches as were buylded by true Christians, were not buylded to such end as yours are. Constātinus Magnus was a true Christian with you also, and of him I told you erewhile in the 19. Dem. out of Eusebius, that he builded Apostolorum tem­plum, A temple of the twelue Apostles, in his citie of Constanti­nople, appoynting his owne body to lye in the midle of their 12. shrines, Vt defunctus que (que) precationum, quae ibidem essent ad Apostolorum gloriam offerendae, particeps efficeretur: That also after his death he might be partaker of the prayers, whiche there should be offered to the Apostles glory. And at his burial accor­dingly, [Page 301] Much people with the Priests, preces pro anima Impera­toris Deo fundebant: made prayers to God for his soule. And likewise to this day we sée, saith Eusebius, that he enioyeth there the diuine Ceremonies, and the Mysticall Sacrifice & the societie of the holy prayers. This was his end (among others:) and the same was the end of al our Church founders, Pur. 338. to 347. saith D. Allen. Not so, saith Fulke: for Pur. 339. Ar. 52.57. Fulk is no babe you may see, our Stories testifie, that at the first conuersion of this Land to Christianitie, the Temples of the Pa­gane Britons, and of the Idolatrous Saxons, were conuerted into Churches of the Christians. Therfore these Churches forsoth had Pagane founders, and not beleeuers of Purgatorie: as likewise Pantheon in Rome. As though that they which conuerted them to the Christian vse, were not rather their founders: as now also king Henry the eight is called of you, a founder of many places that he did not buyld, but only alter. So then here is one ende of their Churches, all one and of our Churches, to wit, to pray for the dead.

But they were all buylded in the honor of God, of Christ: Ar. 53. to 55. and the most of yours in the honor of creatures, of Saints. Mary, well ymet. The aforesaid Church of Constantinus was it not called, The twelue Apostles Church? And doth not S. Augustine De Ci­uit. Dei talke of Basilicae Martyrum & Apostolorum, Au. de Ciu. li. 1 ca. 1.4. The Apo­stles and the Martyrs Churches or Palaces, calling thē also ‘ Chri­sti Basilicas, The Churches of Christ’, which you make to be oppo­site one to the other? besides infinite like examples. And therfore your places out of S. Basill and Didymus, & S. Augustine, Bas. ep. 141 Did. de sp. sanct. Au. ep. 174 Ench. c. 56. Cont. Ma­xim. Ar. l. 1. Titul. 11. De ver. rae. ca. 55. that a Temple is onely for God, make no more against our Churches now, then against theirs at that time. But the places, where S. Augustine answereth the matter, for you to alleage them against it, is most vayne impudencie. He Au. de ci. li. 8. c. 27. & li. 22. ca. 10. telleth you & the Paganes for him selfe and for vs together: But we do not to our Martyrs build Temples as to Gods, but Memories as to dead men, their soules yet liuing with God. Nec ibi erigimus Altaria, in quibus sacrificemus Martyribus, sed vni Deo, &c. Neither in those me­mories do we erect Altars (etiam super sanctum corpus Martyris, Not so much as them that are made ouer the holy bodies of Mar­tyrs) vpon them to sacrifice to the Martyrs: But to the one, both ours and the Martyrs God, do we offer the Sacrifice. Although at [Page 302] that Sacrifice, they, as the men of God, be in their place and order named, and we honor the Memories of them as of holy men of God. Ar. 55. Sozo. li. 2. ca. 2. This is the meaning and none other of S. Peters Church, S. Laurence Church, of S. Peters Altar, S. Laurence Altar. And euen so of Angels Churches also, Sozomenus telling of a Church in Constantinople called Michaelium, S. Michaels, in memorie of an Apparition of that Archangell there.

Pur. 344.345.But in the third end you pay vs home, for the great grauntes that Constantine made to Syluester Byshop of Rome, he made to marryed Byshops of Rome. And that were so, then crie on a Gods name, Viuat Iouinianus, Blessing vpon Iouinian, and A­nathema to S. Augustine who called him a monster, yea and vp­pon all the Churche of Rome, where not so much as one Priest would marrie for all his perswasions, but so faithfully resisted him, that out of hand they extincted his heresie, here Cap. 8. pag. 149. Séeing this your impudent most false assertion of Rome, who will maruell to heare you say as boldly of England? Many of these Churches and Colledges, yea the most notable Cathe­drall Churches in Englande, were buylded, for Preachers of the Gospell, and their wiues to Then is the Q. Iniunction to blame. dwell in, and they were first inhabi­ted of marryed Priestes. Is it possible? Our stories are plenti­full in that poynt: if you be skilfull in antiquitie, you cannot be ignoraunt of this, which is testified of Ranulphus Castrensis, Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis, the storie of Peterburghe and many other. You talke sometymes of a Whetstone as bygge as a Mountayne? You haue wonne it, you must néedes haue it. This our Stories tell, that manye of our Priestes had néede sometymes of reformation, and that also with violence, suche was their obstinacie in that durte: as also in other Countryes, too often. But that any Churches were builded for suche swine, or first inhabited by such, is a chicken of your owne hatching.

Ar. 55.56.57.After this wée haue to consider what you say of Chauncells and the Roode lofte, of Altars, of Chalices, and Uestmentes. The Churche of Tyrus (Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 4.) had (Can­cellos) the Chauncell in the myddest: and the Altar beyng but one, Fulk driuen to confesse altars in the Church. in the myddest of the Chauncell. So also as the Priestes and Deacons stoode rounde about it. Agayne, Many Chur­ches [Page 303] haue Crosse Iles. Belike you are sodainely become our Proctor. For Chauncelles, Altars, and Crosses were not (I trow) in your fellowes late buyldinges (which you mention Pur. 342.) at Orleans, Antwarpe, and other places. And there­fore as sodainly you chaunge agayne, and say, that the Chaun­celles are but additions buylded since the Churches, of lyke­lyhood by the persons that disdayned to haue their place in the myddest of the people as the olde manner was. Euen as likely as that it was of disdayne, that Saint Ambrose by his Archdeacon commaunded the Emperour Theodosius senior, Theo. li. 5. ca. 17. Sozom. li. 7. ca. 24. out of the Chauncell, telling him that it was for the Cleargie onely, solis sacerdotibus. If you knowe that maruellous Sto­rie, you may better remember your selfe, because you saye, In the Orientall Churche, as their Ceremonies are diuers from yours, so no doubt the fashion of their Temples differeth from yours. You may there perceaue that both in the East and West Churche, the diuersitie was not in the Ceremonies nor Tem­ples, but in the Byshops, for many were flatterers, or vn­skilfull, euery one was not an Ambrose. Howbeit some little differences are in the Temples also of one Citie, but without iarre, yea all very sightly becomming our Church, Psal. 44. as varie­tie in the Quéenes goodly garment. But your Religion may not beare any Chauncels at all, neyther in the myddest nor at the East ende. It may not beare the length into the East, which was and is the common and Apostolike fourme, but will haue all rather to bée rounde, accordyng to the example of those fewe which before were lyghtly Temples and Sy­nagogues of the Paganes and Iewes: as Sainct Maria Ro­tunda in Rome, which was Pantheon, and those two at London and Cambridge which you doo mention. It may not bear the out Isles to make it in forme of a Crosse lying along vp­pon the ground. No it may not beare any Crosse or Roode at all, to be in the Church, although Constātinus had Eus. in vi. Cōst. li. 2. c. 12. l. 4. c. 56 Soz. li. 1. c. 8. Tabernaculum Crucis, a Tabernacle or moueable Church of the Crosse, carryed about with him in the warres: and also in Hierusalem Eus. or. de laud. Cōst. pag. 367. dedi­dicated an holy Temple Salutari Signo Crucis, to the health­full signe of the Crosse: and also set vp Euseb. de laud. Cōst. pa. 368.388 Trophaea victoriae [Page 304] contra mortē partae, Triumphant signes of the victorious Crosse, in the Churches and Temples consecrated to God. And in his Church of our Lords Passion, the very Crosse it selfe that our Sauiour dyed vpon kept in secret. ‘Quam Episcopus vrbis eius quotannis, Paulin. ep. 11. ad Seu. cum pascha domini agitur, adorandam populo, prin­ceps ipse venerantium, promit, The which most holy Crosse, the Bishop of Hierusalem ( as S. Paulinus Bishop of Nola, and S. Augustines great familiar friend writeth) bringeth forth euery yere to be adored of the people, him selfe beeing the first & chie­fest of them that worship it: and that at Easter, die qua Crucis ipsius Mysterium celebratur, ipas (que) sacramentorum causa est, quasi quoddam sacrae solennitatis insigne, Creeping to the Crosse vpon good Friday. [...]ere cap. 3. pag. 9. and cap. 6. pag. 39. Vpon the day that the mysterie of the Crosse it selfe is celebrated, and it selfe is the cause of the seruice, as it were a certayne banner of the holy solemnitie. Your religion may not beare these things, as which (you say) the auncient Church tooke of Ualentinian Heretikes: nor so muche as one Altar in a Church, howbeit then also were many Altars in one Church. For the same Paulinus in the same place wri­teth, that the same Church was Auratis corusca loquearibus, & aureis diues Altaribus, glistering with gilded Roses, and rich with golden Altars. Beda hi. l. 5 c. 16.17.18.’ And his Church of the Resurrection, tria Altaria continebat, had three Altars, as we reade in S. Bede.

And what do you talke agayne of Chalices of wood and of glasse, and of selling the golden and siluer vessels, euen the holiest vessels of all, to redeeme captiues? séeing that you may beare no Chalices at all, Ar. 57. Pur. 69. no holy vessels at all, but say playnly: Your vest­mēts are of as good stuffe as your Chalices, the old Church knew none such. Then belike you neuer read of that Sacra Stola ex aureis filis cōtexta, Theod. li. 2 ca. 27. Holy Cope, wouen of gold thredes, the which Constantinus gaue to the Bishop of Hierusalem, Vt ea amictus sacrosancti Baptismatis ministerium obiret, to weare when he did solemnly celebrate the administration of holy Baptisme. Be­cause S. Fulgentius (out of Vita S. Fulg. c. 18. whose life Ant. 2 p. hi. li. 11. c. 12. your author S. An­toninus tooke it) had neuer an Hier. li. 1. con. Pelag. holyday coate, but onely one [...]oate for all times, and for all things, you imagine that he saide Masse (sacrificabat) without holy vestments. When those moste perfect Monks are in Histories noted to haue bene monochitonos, do you so vnderstand it? How then was S. Sasill so commended of [Page 305] the Emperour Ualens, Quod in Natali Domini tanto cum orna­tu, tam (que) decenter sacerdotio fungeretur, For executing in Christ­mas with such ornamentes, and such comelynesse? As also, Sozo. li. 8. ca. 21. when S. Chrisostomes Priestes and Deacons were beaten at Easter by his enemies in the Church, ‘ Et in ornatu (vt erant) per vim rap­ti, and in their ornamentes (so as they were) carried away violent­ly’. For though some in great pouertie, as commonly in times of persecution and spoile, as now also in England, vsed either none or very simple vestmentes, and wooden, glasen, leaden, or copper Chalices: and although you say, Ar. 57. The seruice of God hath small neede of furniture in outward things, for God being a spirit, is not worshipped with outward pompe: yet it is euident, that the Churches then, in times of peace, were much richer in such stuffe and (as Paulinus calleth it) in alma sacri pompa ministerij, Paulin. epi. 12. ad Seu. in the magnificall pompe of the holy ministerie, then they be now: in so much that Acacius Bishop of Amida (of whom you talke) was able therewith to redéeme at once seuen thousand captiues, Socr. li. 7. ca. 21. to féede them, and to giue them to bring them home into Persia. There was belike in England such necessitie to redeeme Cap­tiues, or to build Temples of God, Ambr. off. li. 2. ca. [...]8. for the enlarging of the Mar­tyrs monumentes, or to prouide that requies defunctorum might be at the buriall of Christian men, which are the three vses that S. Ambrose hath in the place that you alleage. Sane si in sua ali­quis deriuat emolumenta, crimen est. Marry if any man turne them to his owne commoditie, it is an heynous fault. As you haue done in Eng­land. But it was not for that, it was for the foresaid causes: and then withall a reuerent choise was made first of non initiata vasa, vnconsecra­ted vessell, and after when necessitie vrged also to the consecra­ted, great respect was had, ne Ecclesia Mystici poculi forma non exiret, that a Mysticall cuppe went not from the Church in his owne forme, ne ad vsus nefarios sacri calicis ministerium transfe­retur, least the instrument of a sacred Chalice (which he there cal­leth also a vessel of our Lords bloud, & Gold in which our Lords bloud is powred) might be conuerted (by the buyers) into wicked vses. Are you not ashamed to cite such places out of antiquitie, you that hate Chalices because they be Chalices, and because they be consecrated?

After all this you say full wisely: We are content, Ar. 57. that your [Page 306] Church by her gorgeous garmēts, aswel as by other things, should declare it self to be that woman which is prescribed to be clothed in purple, gold, pearles, and such like ornaments, Apoc. 17. The true sense of which place I haue giuen cap. 8. pag. 126. But you in the meane time to giue vs a blow, care not that the stroke ligh­teth withall vpon the Primitiue Church (for it was not yours, why should you spare it?) as I haue here shewed, & as your selfe confesse in speaking aboue of those golden and siluer vessels that Acacius sold, Pur.. 342. and elsewhere of those Princely buyldings, that by Constantine and other Christian Princes were first set vp, & must confesse much like of those former Cryptes, Caues or vaultes vn­der the earth, if you know well the story of S. Laurences mar­tyrdome, namely that the Tyrant said to him. ‘ Prud. Hym de S. Laur. peristeph. ij.Hunc esse vestris Orgijs
Morē (que) & artē, proditū est,
Hanc disciplinam foederis,
Libent vt auro antistites:
Argenteis scyphis ferunt
Fumare sacrum sanguinem:
Auro (que) nocturnis sacris
Adstare affixos cereos.’

‘ This is the vse and order of your Ceremonies, as some haue con­fessed, this is the doctrine of your Testament, That the Prelates do sacrifice in gold: In siluer cuppes (they say) the sacred bloud doth smoke: and that the tapers stand vpon gold, at the sacrifice in the night.’

Likewise by that litle which I haue said of the Crosse and the Signes thereof, it is euident that in your vsuall rayling agaynst dumbe Images, Ar. 4. Pur. 20.21.22.460. 2. Cor. 6. stockes, and stones, you do no more but vtter that you are no more of the auncient true Church, then of our Church now which you denie to be the true Church. S. Paule in déede saith, that the Temple of God and Idolles can not agree togea­ther, speaking of Christians that did draw with Infidels, as re­ceiuing of meate sacrificed to their Idolles, such as now receiue of Caluins bread. But that the true Temples of God, and Ima­ges belonging to the same God, agrée well together, you can not denie, but you must reuoke your owne confession made here of those auncient Temples of Christ. And therefore you do but like your selfe, to say: I care not what your fathers called or counted Sacrilege. But God our heauenly father cōmaunded vs to breake, burne, and destroy al your Idols, and to deface al the monuments of them, Deut. 12. And all the godly Patriarkes and Fathers both [Page 307] before Christes cōming and since, haue giuen vs example hereof. What els? they gaue vs example to set vp Crosses, & you example to pull them downe. You may roll in suche Rhetorike before fooles that receiue your absurde principles, to wit, that the Idols of the Paganes were Images of the Christians. But when the simplest Catholike doth no more but denie your principle, you are by and by non plus. No syr, but to auoyde prolixitie, I could tell you playnely and at large who were your fathers in these spoyles that you haue made of Christes churches, to wit, the Do­natistes, the Arrians, the Eutychians, yea Iulianus Apostata, yea and that you haue out-shot them all, and left nothing to An­tichrist him selfe but onely to fill vp the measure, as I haue suffi­ciently touched cap. 8. pag. 128. And therefore neither will that serue, which againe you say: Pur. 341. Suche liuings as are appoynted vs by the Prince, and the law, we may enioy with a good conscience. No syr, it will not serue. For you may remember the storie in S. Ambrose, De Basilicis tradendis. Ambr. li. 5. post epist. 32. & ep. 33. He would dye rather then to deliuer the Churches to the Emperour, and the Arrian Empresse his mother. And so you enioy our Churches with as good a con­science, as the Arrians should haue done at that time: as you shal féele when you come in your course, after your seniors, before the iust iudge our mothers husband, whose Dowries they be.

22. Seruice. Motiue 32. Article. 6.

The 22. Demaund is of the Seruice, which Fulke in worde chalengeth no lesse then we, saying here cap. 2. pag. 4. Constanti­nus buylded those Churches for our assemblies and Seruice, and in the Cryptes also before that, our assemblies were kept. But in déede he confesseth that it was ours, and reiecteth it accordingly: so that I must stande here to defende it rather then to clayme it. Pur. 377. His defence of their new Communion booke is this: Whosoe­uer were children of the true Church, would neuer finde faulte with our Communion, which can not be condemned by the worde of God: and therefore careth not for the comparison of the custome of other men, which whether they vsed the like or not, in forme of words (whith is not materiall) so they vsed not other substance of matter, except they did it besides the worde of God. And yet it must be preiudiciall to our Masse booke, [Page 308] (not that the hooke was made since the Apostles time, Ar. 21.38. Pur.. 402.413. but) that any peece was added since by certain Popes, yea though the very same péeces be reteined in their cōmunion booke also. Let al men therfore consider, how iust the defence is that I made in this De­maund, to wit, that no péece, be it neuer so new, neither in the Masse booke, nor in our other Seruice bookes, is contrary to the old faith of the Apostles conteined in the word of God written or vnwritten: yea the same in substance, and cōmonly in forme of words also, was in the Apostles and Fathers Churches.

The Primitiue Church had the same seruice that the church [...] hath.Let one example hereof be, Prayer for the dead, and that also in the Canon of the Masse, as Fulke him selfe confesseth here at large cap. 3. pag. 16. to .21. And whatsoeuer he obiecteth against the Primitiue Church and vs for it, saying they had it of the Diuell &c. (cap. 3. pag. 22.) that it is against the Scriptures, and contrary to the same Doctors them selues: I haue answered all cap. 6. pag. 47. to 56. and cap. 8. pag. 133. to 134. and cap. 9. pag. 161. to 164. pag 193. to 214.

Let another example be, praying to Saintes, as he also con­fesseth here cap. 3. pag 10. And what he obiecteth against the Fa­ters and vs for it, I aunswere cap. 6. and cap. 8. pag. 138. sauing one place of S. Augustines, Ar. 55. vpon which he saith: Note that no Sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs, but prayer is a Sacrifice, therfore it ought to be offered only to God. Secondly, that Mar­tyrs were not called vpon in the time of the Sacrifice, but onely named for remembraunce. Cunningly noted, as appeareth by these words of his in another place: Aug. tract. 84. in Ioa. De ve. Ap. sermo 17. Non sic beatos Martyres, &c. We do not make such a commemoration of the blessed Martyrs as of other that rest in peace: that we also pray for them, but ra­ther that they may pray for vs. Was this, to be onely named for remembraunce? Neither in the Aug. ciui. li. 22. ca 10. place that you alleage doth he say, that they were not called vpon in the time of sacrifice, but, Non tamen a Sacerdote qui sacrificat, inuocantur, The Priest that sacrificeth, Aug. Ciuit. li. 8. ca. 27. Offerimus (do­mine pater) praeclare maie­stati tuae, &c. doth not inuocate them. And what he meaneth by his inuocation that sacrificeth, he declareth there afore, saying: Which of the faithfull euer heard the Priest standing at an Altar, though also made vpon the holy body of a Martyr for Gods honor and seruice, to say in the prayers or Canon: Offero tibi Sacrificium Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane, I offer sacrifice to thee, O Peter, or [Page 309] Paule, or Cyprian? But otherwise for praying to Martyrs, ‘S. Augustine is very playne in the same worke, the same booke, and almost the same chapter, telling certaine Myracles, one in a wo­man, that prayed to the holy Martyr S. Steuē, Aug. ci. l. 2. ca. 8.9.10. in S. Augustines owne Church, ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat: another in a poore man, that prayed aloude to the twentie Martyrs in the same towne, ad viginti Martyres clara voce orauit. And such My­racles are done (he saith) by God, at the Martyrs suite & instance, eis orantibus & impetrantibus.’ And therfore whether prayer be a sacrifice, or no: and how it is, or is not, we nede not stand here a­bout it. As also, because he doth not say, that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs, as you pretend, but he speaketh of exter­nal sacrifice (the definition wherof you may conceiue by that litle which I said cap. 6. pag. 49.) and of one certaine externall sacri­fice, We offer the sacrifice to the one God, Aug. de ci. li. 8. ca. 27. That prayer to Saintes is not a sacrifice to Saintes. who is both the Mar­tyrs God, & ours: At which sacrifice they be named in their place and order. In so much that by this one Sacrifice he answereth the Paganes, touching certaine dishes of meate brought by some Chrystians to the Martyrs churches, euen as I answere you touching prayer made to them. Non autem ista esse, &c. But that these be not sacrifices to the Martyrs, he knoweth that knoweth the One Sacrifice of the Christians, which is there offered to God. Those Christians do meane no more, but to haue them there san­ctified by the merites of the Martyrs, in the name of the Lorde of the Martyrs.

Let the third example be of ceremonies generally, suche as he confesseth here cap. 3. pag. 15. to haue bene in the primitiue church also. And two obiections of his against them, I haue answered cap. 6. pag. 45. But now he will reproue them out of Scripture also, & first by his vsual argumēt ab authoritate negatiue. Ar. 19. Because they are destitute of God his word, which only is able to giue thē strength and estimation. And yet in other places, cleane contra­ry, not only Scripture, but also example of the Primitiue church is sufficient for them: as where he saith: Ar. 21.42. If any thing be allowed without controuersie on both sides, it did either procede from the Scripture of God, or frō the Primitiue Church, Ar. 48. Iust. Apol. 2. or els it is a thing meerely indifferent. And to this purpose he citeth Iustinus Mar­tyr, who declareth playnly (he saith) what order of seruice and [Page 310] ministration of Sacramentes our Church vsed before Papistrie preuayled. As though the booke or books of seruice were no more then these few lines in Iustinus. And yet also to sée y ^e blindnesse of this mā, so litle as he bringeth out of that Martyr, yet is there plaine against his Communiō booke, Water mingled with wine, But no one word against the Masse booke, yea it is the very sūme of the Masse, vnlesse you be so foolish to thinke, that the Bishops sermon, the Receauing of all present, the Carying of it to them that be absent, and the Rich mens offering, may not be omitted in any Masse, nor for any cause. Now let vs here against Cere­monies, Ar. 19. your authorities of Scripture affirmatiuely. We detest and abhorre all your beggarly Ceremonies which you count ho­ly and solemne obseruations. For we know, that God is not to be worshipped with such thinges, but that the true worshippers must worship him in spirite and veritie. Ioa. 4. Then belike you detest all Ceremonies and all outward thinges, those also of the Pri­mitiue Church, yea and of the Scripture it selfe, which erewhile you allowed. You saw this reply and therefore in another place you would moderate the matter, saying: The seruice of God hath small neede of furniture, Ar. 51. in outward things. For God beeing a spirite, is not worshipped with outward Pompe, but with spiritu­all and inward reuerence. And as for other furniture that is ne­cessarie, was decreed to the Church by the Emperour Constantine and his Successors: Notwithstanding the Church was in better case before such furniture was graunted, then since. Like one that will not hold his peace, and yet cannot tell what to say. If Gods being a spirite admitteth some outward furniture well ynough, then haue you missensed that text. The meaning is, that outward thinges, without the inward man please not God: But for all that the inward man may vse outward gestures, outward wor­des, and other outward thinges, as Christ him selfe, his Apostles, and all the Church euer did. For so to do, is to adore God who is a spirit, in spirit & truth. And touching the other text that you al­leage not, but allude vnto, those weake & beggerly elemētes Gal. 4. are the Ceremonies of the old law, specially after the death of Christ whom they shadowed, and much more the Galathians be­ing Gentiles, to whom they neuer parteyned: and you wrest it against the Ceremonies that are vsed in the administration of the gracious Sacramentes of Christ, and that by the order of [Page 311] them that could say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis: Act. 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to vs. Like as agaynst the Lessons, Responses, Versicles, and suche other distinctions or varieties in the Seruice, you alleage Matth. 15. Ar. 20. In vayne do they worshippe me, teaching for doctrine the preceptes of men. Such is your ignorance in the Scripture, by reason of your malice. The preceptes of men, are those which be of men, and not of God: as those traditions of the two late Elders, Hilleb & Sam­mai, béeing partly friuolous, as those vayne lotions, partly also contrarie to Gods Commaundementes, as that of Corban, Tit. 1. wherevppon S. Paule biddeth Titus to be earnest wi [...]h the Cretensians, that they listen not to Iudaicall fables, & manda­tis hominum, and to the preceptes of men that turne away from the trueth: Wherevpon the inuentions also of Luther, Caluine, and all other Heretikes, are the preceptes of men, and their fol­lowers worship they knowe not what, Ioan. 4. Pur. 21. and if they be also zelous, it is without knowledge, Rom. 10. But so are not likewise the preceptes of them, to whom our Sauiour saide, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, Luc. 10. de­spiseth me. And therefore S. Paule commaunded them of Sy­ria and Cilicia, Act. 15.16. to keepe the preceptes of the Apostles and Priestes, that were decréed in the Councell of Hierusalem. S. Augustine likewise (here cap. 6. pag. 45.) embraceth the Ce­remonies decréed in Councels of Bishoppes, and muche more them that are vsed throughout the whole Churche. And you fal­sifie the Councell of Laodicia, when you saye, It decreed, Conc. Lao ca. 59. that nothing should be song or read in the Churche, but the Ca­nonicall bookes of holy Scripture. No Syr, that did rather your friende Paulus Samosatenus, who reiected the Psalmes and Songs which to the honour of our Lorde Iesus Christ, Eus. li. 7. c. 24. de­cantari solent, are wont to be song (saith Eusebius) tanquam recentiores, as beeing but lately made, and set out by men of late memorie: Renewing the Heresie of Artemon agaynst the Godhead of Christe, the whiche a certayne Catholike doth there confute long afore ex Hymnis a fidelibus fratribus an­tiquitus perscriptis concentu quodam, Eus. li. 5. c. 27. By the Hymnes made of olde in meeter by faythfull brethren. He maketh mention also of Eus. li. 7. ca. 19. the Hymnes of Nepos: Theodoretus and Zosome­nus [Page 310] of Theo. lib. 4. ca. 24. Zoso. l. 3. ca. 15. the Hymnes of S. Esrem in the feastes of Martyrs, and S. Augustine very often of Aug. retr. li. 1. ca. 21. Confes l. 9. ca. 6.7.12. the Hymnes of S. Ambrose. The Councell of Laod. doth no more but forbid priuatos & vulgares Psalmos, priuate and vulgar Psalmes (made by simple men) to be said in the Church, as the Con. Mil. ca. 12. Con. Cart. 3. ca. 23. Mileuitane Councell also com­maundeth, that no other prayers, or collectes, or Masses, or prefa­ces, or commendations, or handlayings be said in the Church, nisi quae a prudentioribus tractatae. But such as haue bene examined by some more skilfull, or allowed in the Synode, least it chaunce something to be made against the faith, or by ignoraunce, or by negligence. Likewise touching lessons, the Councel of Laod, doth no more but forbyd the Apocryphall Scriptures, libros non Ca­nonicos, to be read, sed solos Canonicos veteris & noui Testimen­ti, but the onely Canonicall bookes of the olde and new Testa­ment: Con. Cart. 3. ca. 47. Ar. 20. as also the .3. Councell of Carthage decreeth, that beside the Canonicall Scriptures, nothing be read in the Church vnder name of the diuine Scriptures, for which cause both Councelles doth there declare, which bookes be Canonicall, and the Carthage Councell addeth also, that the Martyrs Passions may be read, when their anniuersarie dayes be celebrated.

These examples declare manifestly, that you detest in our ser­uice euen those things, which were in the seruice of the Primi­tiue Churche, and all without cause: and that it is an horrible blasphemie, where you say: If you demaund, whence your Cere­monies, VVhy then do you kepe them novv. festiuall dayes, feastes, and varieties of Seruice did pro­ceede? I aunswere plainly, out of the bottomlesse pit of Hell.

For touching dayes also (which may be the last example) of Fasting, and Feasting: you confesse (cap. 3. pag. 13. and cap. 6. pag. 43.) that Aerius and Iouinianus were condemned in the Primitiue Church for Heretikes, because they denyed the dayes and merites of Fasting, and the Scriptures that you obiect a­gainst the Fathers, & vs for it, I haue aunswered cap. 8. pag. 140. to .143. Ar. 20. Likewise you confesse, that Festiuall dayes were vsed in the Primitiue Church: adding, to shewe of what Church you be, that they might haue bene omitted, without any hurt of Christi­an Religion wel. But they were not kept in honour of the Saints as they are of the Papistes (for that is great Idolatrie, as also to build Churches in the honor of Saintes, but only for the memory [Page 313] of the martyres and other Saintes, that their good life might be followed. Whether for that onely, let S. Augustine be witnesse, where he saith: The Christian people doth celebrate together the martyres memories with religious solemnitie, Aug. cōtra Faust. l. 20. ca. 21. Et ad exitandam imitationē, et vt meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus ad­iuuetur, Both to stirre vp imitatiō, and to be ioyned in felowship to their merites, and holpen with their prayers. Was not this to kéepe their memories in their honor also? As againe it is ma­nifest not onely by certayne places alleaged before, but also in the very words that you alleage, de ver. Relig. cap. 55. Ar. 20.54. The saints must be honored for imitation, not adored for religion. ‘Honora­mus eos charitate, non seruitute, We honour the blessed Angels with charitie, not with seruice. Doth he not here expresly auouch their honoring?’ As for your note, that Seruitus is the same that Dulia is, contrary to the Papists which will worship them with seruice called Dulia or Seruitus, it is but your vnacquayntance in S. Augustines writings. Reade De Ciuit. Dei li. 10. ca. 1. Seruitus. Latria. La­triam quippe nostri, vbicun (que) sanctarum Scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt Seruitutē: ‘For whersoeuer in the holy Scrip­tures in Gréeke is put Latria, our Latines haue translated it Ser­uitus. And so you may sée, that he vseth Seruitus for Latria, not for Dulia, as also he vseth Religio for thresceia béeing synonymum to Latreia. But saith he, speaking of cultus Deitati debitus, the wor­ship due to the Godhead, Propter quem vno verbo significandū, quoniam satis mihi idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Greco, &c. Because to signifie it in one word, I finde no Latin word apt y­nough ( neither Religio nor Seruitus, although in that booke De vera Relig. he so vsed them, being yet but a Lay man) I do, where it is necessarie, vtter my mind by the Greeke word, Latria.’

Lo I haue alleaged here no more but as an answere. And yet I haue made it manifest, that notwithstanding all his obiections, yea also by his owne confession, the Seruice of the Primitiue Church was ours, and not the Protestants: defending it also ea­sily against his vaine cauils. Ar. 38.40.49. Neither shal he euer be able to shew that any Church, Latin or Gréeke, Brytish or other, had authen­ticall seruice, but it was ours, as D. Allen told him before.

Now as for the Language in which the Seruice is, Seruice in Latine. that ma­keth no difference in the Seruice it selfe. For praying for y ^e dead [Page 314] is all one, whether it be in Latine or in English. Yet because he holdeth, that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues, let vs sée what be his groundes thereof.

Ar. 49.40. We can easily shew it out of the Scripture, so he saith, but no word that he alleageth any where. But bylike he meaneth the place to the Corinthians, by which his fellowes do commonly reiect the Latin Seruice, as if it were that miraculous gifte which the Apostle there calleth, 1. Cor. 14. Loqui linguis, to speake with tongues. Which also he doth not reiect, but moderate, for the va­rietie of certayne much like to Pur. 7.some Protestantes that thinke all learning to be the tongues. Now if any learned man, séeing it is not the seruice that S. Paule there speaketh of, thinke yet that one may argue thence at the least a simili: ‘ Let him consi­der, first, that so the maner of the simple Catholikes, who praye to them selues priuately in the Latine tongue which they vnder­stande not, is not condemned, but iustified. For, He that spea­keth in a tongue, speaketh not to men, but ( yet) to God. And, he that speaketh in a tongue, doth also edifie him selfe ( in spirite, that is, in affect.) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirite ( or affec­tion) prayeth, though my vnderstanding be without fruite. And therefore If thou blesse, or giue thankes in spirite, thou doest it well. But if there be no Interpreter, let him be silent in the Chur­che, and speake to him selfe and to God.’ The difference is one­ly this, that those Corinthians receiued immediately of the holy Ghost, such prayers in such a tongue. And these Catholikes now receiue the like prayers of the same holy Ghost, but by y ^e Church. Secondly, that the Church in her publike praiers doth not speake in a tongue, because the Latine tongue is not in Englande a straunge tongue, so, as it were if one should say Masse at Rome in the English tongue. And so the question is not now the same, as was betwéene the Apostle and the Corinthians: but, where­as the Church would do all things for edification, (as S. Paule commaundeth,) the question is, whether this be obteined in the Publike prayers of the whole worlde, rather by the Latine tongue, that is to saye, by the Common tongue, or els by the se­uerall vulgare tongues, that is to say, by the Priuate tongues, To which question, the Catholikes, drawing all to common or vnitie, haue one answer: Heretikes and Schismatikes, drawing [Page 315] from the Common, and scattering into many Priuates, haue an other. At Corinth the case was otherwise, both because the ton­gues were vtterly straunge, and also because the prayers were not Set and Solemne, in writing and custome, but momenta­neous, suggested of the Holy ghost to some one for the time, so that of them they were not vnderstood, there was no profite at all in their publication. And therefore they should not publish them, but speake to them selues and to God. Reade the learned Latin booke of F. Ledesima the Iesuite vpon this matter. He sheweth at large and substantially, that it is neither necessarie, no nor ex­pedient, the Publike Seruice to be in all vulgare tongues, how­beit the Popes holines may (by the Councell of Trent) do ther­in with any Nation as he seeth cause.

And Fulke can not nor doth not denie, but that in the Primi­tiue Church all the Natiōs of the Latine Church had the seruice in Latine, neither can he, or doth he denie, but many of the same Natiōs had vulgare tongues of their owne which were not La­tine, as the Punike tongue, the Dutch tongue, the Brytish tōgue &c. What doth he then? He holdeth, that all the people (and yet once he dare not but adde, For the most parte, which is ynough a­gainst him) of the said Nations, besydes their vulgare tongues, spake and vnderstood Latine. And how doth he proue this absurd position? By the Germaine or French Councelles of Towres, Turon. 3. c. 17. Magunt. c. 25.45.43. Rhem. c. 15. Magunce, and Rhemes, in the time of Carolus Magnus. Where­as one of his places is so plaine against him, that it saith, as we do now also, yf any man cannot learne (so strange and hard was the Latine tongue vnto them) his Créede and Pater noster in Latine, Vel in sua lingua hoc discat, Let him learne it at the least in his owne tongue. One other taketh order for Homilies to be translated out of Latine into the Rusticall The French is yet in some place called, the Romane. Romane or Dutche tongue, playnly: quo facilius cuncti possint intelligere quae dicun­tur, that al may more easily vnderstand that which is said. Wher­of he gathereth, that all the Dutch men vnderstood also the pure Latin tongue, though hardly and not perfectly. He might gather aswell, that all English men vnderstand the Latine tongue, and the pure Latine tongue, if the Bishops should say as they may, Let Latine Homilies be translated into the Englishe tongue playnely, that all maye more easily vnderstande what is saide. [Page 316] Another doth forbid the Priest to say Masse alone, because some body must answer to Dominus vobiscum, and Sursum corda, &c. as also at this time, and therefore he gathereth properly forsooth, that the people commonly vnderstood the Latine Seruice. Ar. 41.49. Cap. 9. Last of all he alleageth the great Councell of Laterane An. 1215. as though it commaunded the Bishops to translate the Seruice into English and other vulgar tongues, whereas it doth no more but commaunde them (because at that time the Latines were Lords of Constātinople, Antioch, Hierusalem, &c.) to prouide ministers according to the rites and languages in which the Seruice pre­sently was, as it is euident by the words of the Councell. And otherwise I aske him, why it prouideth but only for those Cities and Diocesses, in which people of diuers languages be mingled together, and not for all in generall? Besides, that in no place a­ny such translating of the seruice was put in execution. Amongst those 1300. Prelats, was there not one but he was either so neg­ligent, or so desirous of the peoples blindnes? And that neither among those of thē which procured the making of that Canon? This is the stuffe that they haue against Gods Church, or rather this is the execation and infatuation of them that haue forsaken Gods Church.

Motiue 34.23. Apish imitation.

The next Demaund sheweth them to be but the Apes of the Catholike Church, in so much as they retayne of her Seruice and other orders: leauing it to the consideration of the learned in the Scriptures and other writings, that false Religion was always the Ape of true Religion, as in the rest that they haue reiected, they shew them selues to be Apostataes, according to that I no­ted here cap. 8. pag. 144. Wherein the Puritanes are offended with their brethren the Protestants, onely because they will not procéede so farre in this Apostasie, as they and their master An­tichrist who commeth to méete them as it were halfe way, would haue them. Pur. 379. And that is it which Fulke saith to D. Allen: The ciuill Magistrates haue thought good in some outward ceremo­nie or vsage, to beare with the infirmitie of the weaker sorte of your side, Fulke is no Pu­ritant. in hope to winne them. Where he saith further: All your doctrine is abolished, and nothing left but a fewe ragges of your robes to looke vpon. And therefore I accorde with you, [Page 317] that in déede they be infirme, or rather down & dead already, that will be wonne from Gods Church to such companions by so ba­bish meanes. Whether that were the ciuil Magistrates meaning or no, I séeke not, but his meaning who mystically worketh in you, was and is, as I haue said, Apostasie. And therefore againe, where you say: I will vrge the Papists to tell me, Pur. 295. what we say or do in the celebration of the Communion, which Christ cōmaun­ded vs not to say and do, or what Christ did or cōmaunded vs to do, which we do not therein. I say that you be answered already, that whatsoeuer is therein against the holy Masse, (of which we vrge you in like sort) is against Christes commaundement, who said expresly to his Apostles and their Successors, being the orde­rers of the same: He that despiseth you, despiseth me. Luc. 10. Insomuch that S. Augustine talking of such matters, condemneth you (here cap. 6. pag. 45.) of most insolent madnesse, onely for calling in question the Masse or any part therof that is vniuersally recei­ued. Of which matter, and of your said Apostasie, this Demaund following giueth further occasion.

24. Priesthood and Sacrifice. Mot. 21.38. Article. 13. Heb. 7.

In the 24. Demaund, being of the Priesthood and Sacrifice, I touch your Apostasie at the very roote. For S. Paule saith, The Priesthood being translated (from Aaron and them of his order, to Melchisedec or Christ and them of his order,) it is necessary that translation of the Law also be made. That your Heresie of Caluinisme is not a méere Heresie, that is, a corruptiō of Christi­anitie in one or two pointes, but a mutation of the whole new Law almost of Christ, it commeth of this (I say) that you haue made a mutation of the new Priesthood. And that you haue chaū ­ged the new Priesthood, or Priesthood of the New Testament, I shew, because you haue chaunged our Catholike Priesthood. For this Priesthood wherin we serue, came to vs from no other, but from Christ and his Apostles. The Priesthood that they dely­uered, our forefathers and we haue to this day kept the same vnchaunged. To be perspicuous, I come to particulares.

First, the very Apostolike names, Episcopus and Presbyter, Note. that is, Bishop and priest, we neuer went about to change them, you haue labored to change them into these, Superintendent and [Page 318] Elder. Wherevpon it followeth that you haue chaunged the A­postolike order, as it followeth, y ^e Apostles to haue chaunged the Aaronicall order, because they chaūged the former names, Ponti­fex & Sacerdos, for which we haue no English. I touched this here afore in the .6. Dem. pag. 231. and you haue no where answered it. but I finde where you haue holpen it. For wheras the Fathers keeping those new names, Isa. 66. s. 21. yet (according to y ^e Prophesie of Esay) vsed euermore also y ^e former names, considering that y ^e newe or­der no lesse then y ^e old, is a true species of that genus, Sacerdotiū: & wheras we accordingly do in translating put the English word Priest not only for Presbyter, Pur. 283. but also for Sacerdos: you sir trans­lating a passage of S. Cyprians, do put the Priestes twise, where he putteth Sacerdotes, but where he putteth Presbyterum, you shun the word Priest, which is the very same, and put your newe inuented word, an Elder.

Secondly, you helpe another argument of ours, where you say: I would desire none other place in all the scripture, Ar. 29. Pur. 297. to ouerthrow the Popish Hierarchie (which is the gretest glory of their Church) then this place of Paule Eph. 4. He speaketh of Apostles, Euange­listes, Prophetes, Pastors & Teachers. But where are Popish By­shops, Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcistes, Cantors (or Lec­tors) Acolytes, Ostiares? By this you declare that you haue chaū ­ged the order, Hierarchie, or Priesthood of the Primitiue church, wherein, as it is infinitly Eus. li. 6. ca. 34. witnessed, & you cannot denie, but the same degrées were, which here you call Popish. And doth not S. Paule him selfe in other places make expresse mention of Bi­shops, Priestes, & Deacons? And so you might aswell by your wise reason out of Ephe. 4. ouerthrow S. Paules Hierarchies. Who also in the names of Deacons. 1. Tim. 3. includeth subdeacons and y ^e other inferiors, as in the name of Priestes. Tit. 1. he includeth likewise Deacons themselues. And the like is common in y ^e aun­cient Fathers, who yet because Deacons or Ministers is a di­stinct order, Sup. p. 251. do like better to call all vnder Priestes by the name of Leuites, Pur. 383. because that was the generall terme in y ^e old Law, of all the varieties of them that were not Sacerdotes, & to call all to­together Clerum the Cleargie, or in Clericos, or in Clericali mini­sterio constitutos, [...]yp. ep. 66 or ad ordinatione clericalē promotos. Al which termes S. Cypriā hath in one Epistle, with y ^e names of Episcopus [Page 319] and Presbyter, & Sacerdos cōmon to them both. And it is but your ignorance, to thinke y ^t S. Paule should haue named them Eph. 4. considering that he speaketh there onely, of the ministerie of the word, only of preachers, vt iam non circumferamur, &c. that we be not now caried about with euery wind of doctrine, whereas these other are belonging to the ministerie of the Altar. Which are two distinct offices, as you may sée Act. 13. where some prea­chers had not orders as yet, & 1. Tim. 5. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine.

Thirdly, the Apostles Bishops & Priestes were made by other Bishops and Priestes, as also with vs it continueth to this day. But yours be onely of Lay mens making, as of Kings and other Ciuill Magistrates. I passe ouer the difference of liuing Single & Marrying, as a thing extrinsical, & touched before in the .21. Dem. Pag. 250.

Fourthly, your selues confesse our orders to be good ynough, in that hauing béen ordered by vs, you séeke not to be reordered, as Cranmer, Parker, Grindall, Sandes, Horne, &c. whereas we (as you knowe) account your Orders for no orders. Ar. 50.51. To this you say: You are highly deceiued, if you thinke we esteeme your offi­ces of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, any better then the state of Lay men. For we receiue none of thē to minister in our church, except they forsweare your religion, & so their admission is a newe cal­ling to the ministerie. How true it is that you receiue none other­wise, I passe y ^t ouer. But sir, A nevv vvay to giue Orders. we also make your ministers to ab­iure, & yet after y ^t, they be but lay men still. And I would ask you, if two Catholikes abiure w ^t you, one a lay man, y ^e other a Priest, are they both Priests ipso facto? O your diuinitie, O your scrip­ture As for the Sacraments of Baptisme & Matrimonie, we doe not iterate them after you (though we supply the Ceremonies) because a Bishop or a Priest is not the necessarie & sole minister of them, as he is of the Sacramentes of orders & of our Lordes Body. Which is a sounder cause, then yours of reteining the forme of woordes, and for as much as the Sacramentes take not their effect of the minister, but of God. For herevppon you al­lowe (you say) our Baptisme. If that be ynough, what née­deth Abiuring? Yea belyke with you it is the Sacrament of our Lordes Body, if a lay man, or wooman also, reteyne the wordes, for as much as the Sacraments take their effect of God. [Page 320] What is this but to deny the Priesthood, and so to runne hedlong to Apostasie. As that also, where to defend Pilkinton not to be a mocke Bishop, Pur. 343.428. Ar. 72. you bring no more but his excellent learning, and diligent preaching: Inueying against our Catholike Bishops, as vnlearned or vnpreaching, and therefore no Bishops. Whereas in déede we that knew both sydes by experience, can truly testifie that in Catholike Countries, where your Desolation could not yet remoue the Orders of seculare and religious Preachers, ther is more preaching (to say nothing of the stuffe) in so many Chur­ches for so many, in one yeare then with you in ten, and namely to declare the effect of the Sacraments (according to the Councell of Trent, Sess. 8. c. 7. which in another place you cite) to such as receaue thē.

Fiftly, argumentes néede not you say playnly, The spirituall Priesthood is common to al Christian men and women, Pur. 450.451.299. 1. Pet. 1. (as true it is) and against all other Priesthood of any Christian men, you say in the same place: There is no Priesthood to offer sacrifice propitiatorie, but onely the Priesthood of Christ accor­ding, to the order of Melchisedech. Heb. 7. By and by after ma­king vs as in a great absurditie, to say: Christ is not onely our high Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, For euery hedge Priest is of the same order. Why you call thē hedge Priests looke you. But this cannot be denyed, that in the Scriptures and in the Primitiue Church certaine Christian men were Priestes otherwise then Lay men and women, as the Apostles, S. Timo­thie, S. Hierome, S. Cyprian, &c. And therefore then there was some other Priesthood besydes the spirituall Priesthood which is common to all. And therefore againe you haue taken away the Priesthood, by your owne confession.

Sixtly and lastly if to salue this deadly sore, you will inuent some third kind of Priesthood: I say that the primitiue or fathers Priesthood was according to the order of Melchisedech, & to offer a sacrifice in bread & wine, The sacrifice of the Masse. as Melchisedech and Christ did. And therfore you be against y ^e Priesthood, because you be against this Priesthood, arguing & rayling at it al that you can. But we Chri­stians to whom this Priesthood is playnly descended from the A­postles and Fathers, none of you all being able to shew any later origine of it, regard not your arguments, they be but obiections. And yet to defend the truth more fully, for our Fathers and not [Page 321] onely for our selues, we solue them euery one.

But first, that the Reader may see whose aduersarie you be herein, he shall heare S. Augustine. The Manichée had falsified S. Paule, making him to say, qui sacrificant, Au. cō. Ad uer. leg. & prophet. li. 1. c. 19.20. 1. Cor. 10. daemonijs sacrifi­cant, They which sacrifice, do sacrifice to diuels: quasi omnes qui sacrificant, non sacrificent nisi daemonibus, as if al that sacrifice, do not sacrifice but to deuils. He therfore sheweth the Apostle not to say, qui sacrificant, they which sacrifice, but quae sacrificant, the things that they sacrifice, speaking of the Idolatrers. ‘ They do sa­crifice to the diuels, and you therefore are communicantes with the diuels, if you eate of those sacrifices: euen as Israel secundum carnem, the Iudaicall people, eating of their sacrifices, was ther­by partaker of the Altar in their Temple. Deinde secutus adiun­xit, ad quod sacrificium iam debeant pertinere, Then he follow­eth and addeth, to what sacrifice the Corinthians now must per­taine, being Christians and Israel secundum spiritum, saying: The Chalice of blessing which we doe blesse, is it not the Com­munication of the bloud of Christ? The bread which we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lorde? vt intellige­rent ita se iam socios esse Corporis Christi, quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris. That they might vnderstand, themselues now to be Communicātes of the body of Christ, so, as the Iewes are Com­municantes of their Altar. And then a few lines after: The Chur­che, from the Apostles time, by most certaine Successions of By­shops, to our time and hereafter doth continue, et immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, and doth sacrifice to God in Christes Body, a sacrifice of praise. Psal. 49. For this Church is Israel after the spirit, from whom is distinguished that Israel after the fleshe, who serued in the shadowes of sacrifices, by which was signified the singular Sacrifice which now Israel secundum spiritum doth offer. Iste immolat Deo sacrificium laudis, &c. Psal. 109. This Israel doth sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedech. Nouerunt qui legunt, &c. Gene. 14. The Readers know, what Melchisedech did bring forth when he did blesse Abraham. And now they be partakers thereof, they see such a sacrifice now to be offered to God ouer all the worlde. Mala. 1. Et quod Deum non paenitebit, &c. And where the Psalme sayeth, God will not repent him, it is a signification, that he will not [Page 322] chaunge this Priesthood, for he changed the Priesthood after the order of Aaron.’ And not onely S. Augustine, but the whole rancke of the holy Fathers doth teach the same, such a Priesthood to be and to continue in the Church, to offer suche a sacrifice in the forme of bread and wine, tearming it after the order of Mel­chisedech, Pur. 295. in so muche that you also confesse, and say: Those of the olde Writers which compare the celebration of the Lordes Supper with Melchisedeches bread and wine, which, you say, they call sometime the Sacrifice of bread and wine, noting that as though it made against Transubstantiation, (which vayne col­lection I haue refuted here cap. 8. pag. 148.) and also adding fur­ther, And yet but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing. Whether but for thankesgiuing, and not also for procuring mercy, I haue here at large examined cap. 9. pag. 196. to 204. But that is nothing to the matter which we haue nowe in hande. For a Sacrifice of thankesgiuing, is, and in the olde Lawe was a Sacrifice, no lesse properly then a Sacrifice of propitiation. And the Sacri­fice of the Crosse was both, I trow: and therefore the Sacrifice of the Altar to be the one, what doth that let but it maye be the other also? Likewise a memoriall Sacrifice of Christes passion, no lesse then a prefiguratiue Sacrifice, is a true sacrifice, though it be not called his very passion, but by a similitude. And there­fore al that you alleage out of Augustine, Pur. 292.316.320. Chrysostome, Cyprian, Irenée, Iustine, Ambrose, although they saide all as you woulde haue them, that this is a memory of Christes passion, and not his passion but only in a mysterie, is all nothing to the purpose.

Pur. 292.294.320.321.326.And therefore you haue yet a better aunswere in store: We confesse (you saye) that of the olde Writers it is commonly cal­led a Sacrifice, but vnproperly. And howe do you shewe that? Because Ambr. ad virg. lapsā. De virg. l. 1. orat. in fr. Satyr.one of them saith of a virgine that to her death is vn­spotted, that her Parentes might count her Hostiam viuam, a liuing Sacrifice, propitiatricem suorum videlicet delictorum, a Propitiatrix or procurer of mercy for their sinnes, by making intercession for them to God in heauen. You might as well argue, that S. Paule in saying, Christes body by death to be made a Sacrifice, Heb. 10. speaketh vnproperly, because he also saith, our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing Sacri­fice, Rom. 12. To knowe what is properly or vnproperly called [Page 323] this or that, you should sée to the natures of the things in them selues. And then séeing in Christes death, open separation of his body from his bloud, and in Consecration mysticall separation of them (because the words do worke that which they signifie) you should say, in both those Christes body to be properly a Sacrifice (as I told you likewise before cap. 6. pag. 47.) but in perpetuall virginitie, and other mortification, because there is no such sepa­ration of our substantial partes, but onely of our affections from vs, they be called Sacrifices not properly, but onely by a meta­phore and similitude.

Well then, what obiections haue you now against this Priest­hood and Sacrifice of the Fathers and ours? Either that it is none at all: or that it is not a Sacrifice in Christes body, as S. Augustine said?

First, Out of doubt, Pur. 294.295. if the bringing foorth of bread and wine had bene anye thing parteining to the Priesthood of Melchise­dech, the Apostle, Heb. 7. would not haue omitted to haue com­pared it with Christ. But the Apostle comparing Melchisedech with Christe in all thinges in whiche he was comparable, neuer teacheth it as any part of his Priesthood. If it were no part of his Priesthood, what was it then? It is playne by the text that Mel­chisedech beeing both a king and a Priest, as a king liberally en­terteined Abraham and his armie, and as a Priest blessed him. The text in our vulgar Latine translation is this: ‘ Proferens pa­nem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei Altissimi. In your vulgar English translation, this: He brought foorth bread & wine. For he was the Priest of the most highest God. And in y ^e Hebrew, the poynting declareth that also the Rabbins thēselues take it in the same sort, as also the very words do signifie, specially standing in such order.’ And all our Fathers do agrée. Cyp. ep. 63. S. Cyprian shall suf­fice for all, who declareth ‘ the order of Melchisedech, De sacrificio illo venire, to come of that Sacrifice’, not of euery Sacrifice, but of that Sacrifice. And more distinctly, to descende of these thrée thinges: quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit, that he was (not a common Priest, but) the Priest of the highest God, as S. Iohn Baptists preeminence among al y ^e Prophets is signi­fied by this word, Propheta altissimi, the prophet of the highest. Luc. 1. quod panē & vinū obtulit, (hauing said afore protulit, which two [Page 324] you thinke cannot stand together) that he offered (not as other Priests, but) bread and wine. Quod Abraham benedixit, that he blessed) not euery body, but) Abraham, the father of al the faith­full of Christ. And in déede who is so blinde not to sée the corres­spondence in Christ, but you onely that are not Abrahams chil­dren? We Catholikes, his children in faith, and souldiers in con­fession of the same, do sée playnly before our eyes, our true Mel­chisedech, as first by him selfe at his last Supper, so stil by his mi­nisters to bring forth bread and wine, and thereof, as our High Priest to offer for vs this most acceptable Sacrifice, and as our king of kings (who with so few loaues fed many thousands) to prepare for vs this most Royal feast which we can neuer inough admire: Mat. 14. & 15. so singularly by this, blessing both God and vs, that the sacrifice and feast it selfe is named Benedictio, and Eucharistia, Blessing, and Thankesgiuing. ‘ Which S. Cyprian doth there pro­secute very swéetely, saying: For who is more the Priest of the highest God, then our Lord Iesus Christ? who offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same ( against those Aquarij, who offered water in the Chalice, and not wine) which Melchisedeth had offered, that is, bread and wine, suum corpus & sanguinem, his owne body perdie and bloud. Also that blessing going afore about Abraham, ad nostrum populum pertinebat, belonged to our people, saith he as a Bishop & minister of the true Melchise­dech.’ To The end of bringing foorth vvas to blesse, as also S. Au­gustine said aboue. the end therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might by Melchisedech the Priest be duely celebrated, there goeth afore an Image of Christes sacrifice, an image I say, consisting in bread and wine, &c. Where is now your argumēt ab authoritate Heb. 7. negatiuè, with your out of doubt, contra­rie to your owne Logike here cap. 8. pag. 134.

For besides all this, I aske you, whether Melchisedeth were a Priest without all sacrifice at all? If you say, yea, your Diuinity is contrary to Heb. 8. For euery high Priest is ordeined to offer giftes and sacrifices. Note. Wherefore it is necessary, ‘ & hunc habere aliquid quod offerat, this (Priest) also to haue somwhat to offer.’ If you say, he had some sacrifice, tell vs, I pray you, how he was comparable to Christ in his Priesthood, vnlesse he were also in his Sacrifice, considering that his Priesthood consisted in his Sa­crifice? And so you sée that he was comparable to Christ in some [Page 325] thing, to wit, in his Sacrifice, (supposing also that it was not the sacrifice of bread & wine) in which the Apostle compareth them not. What a blindnes is this in you, not to sée Melchisedech in his bread and wine, so expresly mentioned, to be comparable vn­to Christ, whereas by the Apostle also the very omitting of his father and mother and genealogie is in Genesis a shadowing of Christ? séeing also bread and wine so notably vsed in the world by the institution of Christ. Such is either your ignorance in the Scriptures, or also peruersenes against your owne knowledge.

Your second argument may be, where you take on like Cai­phas, Mat. 26. and say, it is a blasphemie, Pur. 298.299. &c. for the Fathers and vs to say that we haue the Priesthood after the order of Melchi­sedech, confirmed vnto vs by oth, Psal. 109. For then (you saye) we must be Christ him selfe, with his eternall diuinitie and euer­lasting natiuitie, and sitting on the right hand. Why syr, doth not the Scripture likewise say, that there is one Baptizer, Ioan. 1. Mat. 3. Hic est qui baptisat, and he such a one as vpon whom the holy Ghost cō ­meth and abideth, and to whom the Father saith, This is my na­turall sonne? Must we then be said to blaspheme, VVhat a doctor Fulke is and take al that to our selues, if we say that we are baptizers? You are a great Doctor forsooth, so to argue. No syr, we are baptizers and priests, Aug. de ci. li. 17. c. 17. but as his ministers (we offer Sub Sacerdote Christo quod pro­tulit Melchisedech, Vnder Christ the Priest, saith S. Augustine:) and therfore he singulerly is the one baptizer, and the one priest. So were not all the rest in the time of the olde Testament, the ministers of Aaron: but Aaron him selfe was Priest only in his owne time, and after him euery one in his time was priest aswel as he: and therefore in that law were many Priests. So that the old Testament was like to England since the Conquest, hauing successiuely many kings. But y ^e new Testament is like to Eng­land during the time of one king: who being but one, yet hath many ministers, as one might say, so many ministeriall kings.

Your third argument: The Apostle to the Hebrues teacheth vs, cap. 10. Pur. 289.201.45.451. that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sinnes (& that but once, cap. 9.) hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified: that our sinnes are taken away by that Sacrifice, and therfore there is no more sacrifice for sinnes left. Do you vnder­stand y ^e words that you alleage? Do you know what he meaneth [Page 326] by those that are sanctified? by their making perfect? by Sacrifice for sinne? Verely you do not, as by & by it will appeare. The scope of that Epistle is to exhorte the Hebrewes, that is, the Christian Iewes (who were sore assaulted of the other Iewes, partly with obiections, partlye with persecutions) to perseuer in the faith of Christ. He doth therfore tell them, that in the old Testamēt there was not Remission of sinnes, but continuall commemoration of them, Heb. 10. But now that Christ hath offered him selfe vpō the Crosse, ‘ Vna oblatione cōsummauit in sempiternum, by that one oblatiō he hath made perfect for euer, sanctificatos, the sanctified’, Heb. 10. that is (1. Cor. 6) the baptized. So that of their former sins there is now no more remēbrance, Iere. 21· & therfore ‘ no more a­ny offering for the’ same, Heb. 10. but if they dye, they go straight to heauen. So mightily and so graciously doth that one oblation work in baptisme. But what if after baptisme they sinne againe? For that S. Paule there doth not (at the least, The true mea­ning of the E­pistle to the Heb. directely) tell any remedie, because his purpose there was no more but to exhorte the standing to perseuerance: and therefore he doth rather terri­fie them saying, If they fall againe, ‘ Iam non relinquitur pro pec­catis hostia, now is not leaste Sacrifice for sinnes’, that is to say, Christes death will not worke with them in another baptisme. This he telleth them: but remedie he doth tell them none. But we by his other Epistles, & by the other Scriptures, and by Tra­dition of the Church, do tell such also against the Nouations, that the same one oblation of Christ hath prepared for them also a remedie, though not another baptisme, yet the Sacrament of Penance. We magnifie it yet moreouer, and say, that it hath also prepared many other Sacraments besydes these, to other singu­ler effectes, and in one of these Sacramentes, a Sacrifice also, in which it worketh to sundrie purposes. By this appeareth (I say) your ignorance in things which yet you feare not to affirme, as that the Catholikes should saye, Christ hath not made them that are sanctified, Pur. 451. perfect by a Sacrifice once offered for all: for the greatest parte is lefte to the Masse. As though when one commeth to vs to be baptized, we diuided the remission of his sinnes betwéene Baptisme and the Masse. This is your blind­nesse, to think that to be against the honor of this one Priest, and of his one Sacrifice, which is highly for it, to wit, to haue vnder [Page 327] him many ministers, and many ministeries as it were cōduites, to deriue his purchase and redemption to his people. If we ascri­bed ought to any man, or to any thing, but from that Priest, and from that Sacrifice, then you might well exclayme against vs. And we in the meane time worthily exclaime against you, for A­postating from the ministerial Priesthood, the mysticall sacrifice, and gracious Sacraments, which he by his death purchased and left to his Spouse the Church our mother for our saluation, and she hath kept them to this day, & deinceps, and will kéepe them (as S. Augustine said) hereafter euen to the ende, at what time your vile tongue shall reape as now it soweth.

Now after your Scriptures let vs heare your Doctors against this Sacrifice, to proue that there is none such, or at the least not consisting in Christes body. Pur. 316.292. That Augustine by this Sacrifice meaneth not the body of Christ, is manifest in his booke De fide ad Petrum Diac. cap. 19. Because there he calleth it Sacrificium panis & vini, the Sacrifice of bread and wine. The same writeth (being Fulgentius, and not Augustine) in the very like place (as you may sée here cap. 6. pag. 63. and calleth it ‘ Sacrificium Cor­poris & Sanguinis Christi,’ The Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. By the firste name, for the matter: by the seconde, for the hoste. But he sayth further (you obiecte) that ‘In isto Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, & sanguinis quem pro nobis effudit: In this sacrifice is Thankesgiuinge, and com­memoration of the fleshe of Christ whiche he offered for vs vppon the Crosse, and of his bloud whiche hee shedde for vs. But what a commemoration? In illis Sacrificijs, quid nobis esset donandum, figuratè significabatur: In hoc autem Sacrificio, quid nobis iam donatum sit, euidenter ostenditur: In the Sacrifices of the olde Testament, was figuratiuely signi­fied what should be giuen vs. But in this Sacrifice is ( not fi­guratiuely signified, but) euidently shewed, what is alreadye giuen vs. In them praenunciabatur occidendus, He was pre­nounced to be killed for vs: in this annunciatur occisus, he is announced already killed.’ In such maner as in Rome the mar­tyrdoms of S. Peter & Paule are, vpon their feast cōmemorated, [Page 328] euidently shewed, and announced by their very bodies and heads then sene and visited. For which cause the Relikes of Martyrs be often in Aug. de ci. li. 22. ca. 8.antiquitie called The memories of the Martyrs. And yet no Martyrs Relikes or body doth so expresse the very species of his martyrdome, as the mysticall separation of Christes body and bloud in this diuine Sacrament doth expresse the species of his passion.

Ar. 55.But you haue one wonderfull place of S. Augustines. For if it were well wayed, it will (you say) interprete and answere all pla­ces of the auncient Doctors, where mention is made of sacrificing the body of Christ at the time of the Communion. In that place go first the words which I put here in the 22. Dem. pag. that he calleth it the one singular sacrifice of the Christians. ‘ Then fol­low afterwards the words that you meane: Ipsum vero sacri­ficium corpus est Christi, And that same ( one singular) Sacrifice is the body of Christ, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt & ip­si: Which ( body) is not offered to the Martyrs, for this be they also. This, to wit, the body of Christ. Hereof you gather, that the body of Christ, which he saith was the Sacrifice that was offe­red, was not the naturall body of Christ, but his mysticall body: because he saith, the Martyrs and it were all one.’ He saith not so, not that they are all one or the same: but that they are of the my­sticall body of Christ, which whole mystical body is offered there to God in the offering of his naturall body, (for there are speciall memories of euery sort, of the Saintes in heauen, of the Soules in Purgatory, of the Catholiks in earth. The bread & wine also, in which his said naturall body and bloud are consecrated, are such things, Au tract. 26. in Ioan. Quae in vnum rediguntur ex multis, as of many cornes and grapes are brought into one loafe and cup: Water also, Cyp. epi. 63. to signifie vs againe, béeing mingled with the wine: Herevpon he saith in the same Aug. ciu. li. 10. c. 6.20 worke, that in the Sacrament of the Altar it is shewed to the Church, that in the oblation which she doth offer, her selfe is offered. And that aswell she by him, as he by her is vsually offered.) And therefore it can not be thought that this naturall body there offered, is offered to the Martyrs (or to the Church) as the Paganes and Manichées did charge the Christian Catholikes, vpon their offering of that naturall body ouer the shrines of Martyrs. You might therefore haue gathered [Page 329] as well, that the Body which he offered vpon the Crosse, was not his naturall body, but his mysticall body the Church, because in offering it there for his Church, he offered his Church to God with it. Reade De Ciu. li. 10. ca. 6. and there you shall sée that he sheweth, how the workes of mercie are a sacrifice, item a person consecrated to God. Item, our body, Item our soule, Item tota ipsa redempta Ciuitas, hoc est, congregatio societas (que) sanctorum, the whole redeemed Citie it selfe, that is, the congregation and so­cietie of the holy, which he calleth vniuersale sacrificium, An vni­uersall Sacrifice. And that after all these metaphorical Sacrifices, he distinguisheth from them all, not onely the Sacrifice of the Crosse, but also the Sacrifice of the Altar, which you confounde with that vniuersall Sacrifice, not considering that he so often calleth it the one and the singuler Sacrifice of the Christians.

Besides these, Pur. 361.293. you haue two places out of Tertullian and I­reneus. The former sheweth (you say) what was the chiefest Sa­crifice that they did offer, to wit, Prayer. The other likewise she­weth, that by the name of the Sacrifice of the Church, he meaneth not the Sacrifice of the Masse (which they call propitiatorie for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead) but the Sacrifice of thankes­geuing and prayers. Tertul. in Apol. Tertullian telleth there the Gentiles in de­fence of the Christians, first, what thinges they prayed for in the Canon of the Masse, to wit, for their Romane Empire among other thinges (the place goeth here before cap. 9. pag. 197.) Then, why not to their Goddes: ‘Haec ab alio orare nō possum quā, &c. These thinges I cannot praye for, of any other, but of whom I knowe that I shall obteyne them, quoniam et ipse est qui solus praestat &c. For both he it is who onely doth geue them, and I am he to whom is due to obtayne, being his seruant, which wor­ship him onely. Then also, why not with their blood Sacrifices of fat calues &c. qui ei offero opimam et maiorem hostiam, quam ipse mandauit, orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocente, de spiritu sancto profatam, which offer to him a fat and greater host, that which he himselfe commaunded, to wit, prayer pro­nounced out of a chast body, out of an innocent soule, out of an holy spirite. Where in the name of that Prayer he comprehen­deth all that is saide and done in the Masse of the faithfull, which to this day also the Priest therefore beginneth, saying vnto vs [Page 330] after the Gospell, Dominus vobiscum: Oremus, Let vs pray, and immediatly goeth to the bread and wine, Hier. epist. ad Euagriū. &c.’ Because this pure Sacrifice is made & celebrated with Prayer ( ad Presbyterorum preces Christi corpus sanguisue conficitur, Christes body and bloud is made by the Priestes prayers, saith S. Hierome,) and be­cause euen the old house of those Leuiticall bloud Sacrifices also was called, Mat. 21. Isa. 56. Domus orationis, The house of prayer.

And as Tertullian setteth out agaynst the impure Paganes, the puritie of the Church in her Sacrifice, so doth S. Irenée set out the same against the Iewes and Heretikes, Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. Mala. 1. to shewe, that the pure Sacrifice in Malachie is offered by her alone, quoniam cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, Because the Church offreth with simplicitie of faith, hope, and charitie, whereas the Iewes hands are now full of bloud, and all the Synagogues of those olde He­retikes helde the bread and wine to be of an yll creation. For this cause he telleth them, that the conscience of him that doth offer beeing pure, doth sanctifie the Sacrifice, and causeth God to accept it as comming from a friend. And that the Sacrifices do not sanctifie a man, Non enim indiget Sacrificio Deus, for God doth not neede a Sacrifice, so as néede should make him glad of it, as it maketh a begger glad, whether the giuer be a friend or a foe. And do not we say the same? Can any Heretike pleade as vpon our verdite, that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread or wine, yea or also the body it selfe and bloud of Christ, so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall Communion, no lesse then we doe in the Masse? And yet the Sacrifice of it selfe is suche, as pleaseth God, and sanctifieth the offerer, but for his owne indisposition. Like as Baptisme of it selfe would cleanse the conscience, Heb. 9.10. though oftentimes it doth not for fault in the receiuers of it. For it is not the worthines of men, but the worthines of Christ, whereof the owne and proper vertue of his Sacramentes, and of his Sacrifice both of the Altar and of the Crosse, dependeth.

Motiue 35.25. Monkes.

My 25. Demaund noteth, that these Heretikes haue cutte off from the Church, her best and perfectest member, to wit, Monkes and Nunnes, who were so common in the Primitiue Churche, [Page 331] that to bring all to the fashion of the Primitiue Church, as they pretende, they shoulde haue made all to be Monkes, rather then none to be Monkes. And Fulke doth nothing here, but helpe our side, in that he Ar. 29.85. Pur. 87.297.250. Hic cap. 9. often reiecteth Monkes, Heremites, Ana­chorites, Canons, Fryers, Nunnes, graunting them no place in the Churche of Christe, partely by an argument ab authoritate Ephes. 4. negatiuè, whiche I aunswered here in the 24. De­maunde, treating of Bishoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, whom he likewise reiected thereby: partly by a saying of S. Chrysostomes, which I returned cleane agaynst him, cap. 9. pag. 193. And yet confesseth, the first Colledges of Monkes in solitarie places to haue béene of the Churche of God, Ar. 52. and namely them at Ban­gor in Wales. Saying further, that they were as occasion serued, taken to serue in the Church, as appeareth by Chrysostome in his booke De Sacerdotio, of Basilius, who was a Monke with him. Among the infinite vtilities that come to the Church by the Religious, that is one to this day, that the Church hath out of them most excellent Pastors, as of late that worthy Pope Pius quintus, who was a Dominicane, besides infinite moe at all times, as then S. Basill and S. Chrysostome. Of this vtilitie, and of all the rest your Heresie hath spoyled the Church of God, in suppressing the Monasteries. As for that you say, they were nothing els but Colledges of Studentes, any that is skilfull in an­tiquitie can tell, that the number rather were no students at all, and that their profession was then euen as it is now. Witnesse S. Augustine, telling of an euil Monke in his owne Monasterie, Au. de bo­no perseue. ca. 25. and saying: Vsque adeo profecit in malum, vt deserta Monasterij societate, fieret 2. Pet. 2. canis reuersus ad suum vomitum. He did so much procede in euill, that forsaking the felowship of our Monasterie, he became a dogge that turneth backe to his vomite. Of others also in another place, that enter into Religion, and finding there some euill brethren, after their Vow go foorth againe through im­pacience. Of such a one he saith: Aug. in Ps. 99. ‘Paucorum hominum molestia irritatos dū non perseuerauit implere quod vouit, fit desertor tam sancti propositi, & reus voti non redditi. Being incensed with the vexation of a few persons, whilest he doth not continue to fulfill that he vowed, he becommeth a forsaker of so holy a profession, and guyltie of not performing his vow. In Colleges of students [Page 332] they are not Votaries, I trow, nor Apostataes when they geue ouer.’ And therefore it is more wisdome for you to sticke to your old set song, Pur. 297. that they haue no testimonie out of the word of God eyther of their names, or of the signification of their names: as your friends the Donatistes said long ago to our Catholike Fa­thers: Aug. in Ps. 132. Con. Petil. li. 3. ca. 40. Hier. cōtra Vigil. Chrys. adu. vitup. vitae Monasticae Ostendite vbi scriptū sit nomen Monachorum, Shew vs in what place of the Scripture is the name of Monks. But it is wel, that the Donatistes, Vigilantius, and such like companiōs were the dispraysers of Monkes and their professiō: And S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Paulinus, with such like, were their defenders, yea and them selues Monkes also. Of whom al­so you may learne, in what Scriptures are found both their po­uertie, continencie, obedience, and also the vowing of the same. So wisely you haue made your match.

Motiue 14.26. Fathers.

The 26. Demaund noteth, that none but Heretikes refuse to be tried by the Fathers, in such maner as I declared ca. 6. pa. 58. to wit, by their consent. And that Fulke refuseth to be so tryed (though he confesse them to haue bene of the true Church, cap. 2. pag. 4.) I haue shewed out of his owne words, cap. 7. pag. 89. to 92. For the which he hath two pretences: the one, in charging the Fathers with sundry errors, partly denied, partly confessed of vs to be errors. Which both sortes I haue answered cap. 6. pag. 39. to 43. The other in holding, that Onely Scripture is of authoritie: for which poynt notwithstanding, I haue shewed that he hath neither Scripture to auouch it, cap. 8. pag. 109. to 116 nor Father. cap. 9. pag. 171. to 183.

We on the other side, as the Catholikes alwayes, are content to stand to y ^e iudgement of the Fathers: which is for vs so plain­ly, that Fulke doth confesse it in many poynts, here cap. 3. and is fayne to refuse it, as I now said. And for the Protestantes in no poynt, no not so muche as the iudgement of any one Father at all, as I haue shewed cap. 9. in answering all that he alleageth out of them against vs. Or if any fewe testimonies be missing there, it is because in some other Chapters they are answered more conueniently.

27 Councels. Motiue 13.

The next Demaund is of Councels confirmed by the Sée A­postolike, which (as I haue said here cap. 6. pa. 60.) can not erre. And therefore none but Heretikes do obstinately resiste suche Councels. But Fulke here, to saue him self, chargeth such Coun­cels with errors, those also which him selfe confesseth to haue bin of the true Church, as the third of Carthage (for whiche I haue answered cap. 6. pag. 62.) and not onely those that are without his compasse of the first 600. yeres, though for them also I haue answered in the same chapter pag. 63. to 78. Where I shewed, that the Councell of Basill was not so confirmed as he preten­deth: and therefore it might erre well ynough in deposing Euge­nius quartus, Ar. 91. howbeit also that is not such an error as he should bring vs, to wit, an error of doctrine. For who doubteth, but also the Pope himselfe may erre in deposing a bishop, or a king? Who doubteth also but a General Councel may vse that prayer when it endeth: Precamur vt ignorantiae parcas, & errori indulgeas: Ar. 90. We pray thee to spare our ignorance, and to pardon our error, fea­ring in their conscience, least either ignorance hath drawen them into error, or perhaps rashnes of will hath driuen them to de­cline from iustice? As both euery general Councell, and the vni­uersall Church vseth this prayer, Forgiue vs our trespasses. Of which also you would no lesse inferre that the vniuersall Church may erre. But you haue the answere cap. 8. pag. 117. to wit, that they both do so pray, by reason of certaine ignorances and frayl­ties of their members, not for any false decrées or beléeuings of their whole bodies. Ar. 89. Au. de bap. cōt. Donat. li. 2. ca. 3. And that which S. Augustine saith euen also of plenarie Councels which are made of the whole Christian world, we say the very same, Saepe priora posterioribus emenda­ri, That the former oftentimes be amended by the later, yea and by the Sée Apostolike alone, when they come to the Pope to be confirmed. But what is this to proue that Councels already confirmed did erre in doctrine? Euen in one Councell sometime the later Session doth amend the former, ‘Cum aliquo experi­mento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat, When by some experiēce is opened that which was shut, or is knowen that which was vnknowen. This is done in the Catholike Church with holy humilitie, with Catholike peace, [Page 334] with Christian charitie. And much more do Prouincial Coun­celles yeeld to the general, sine vllis ambagibus, without any more adoe: and much more againe particulare Doctors. And yet you with your swelling of sacrilegious pride, with your stubbernes of arrogant Ventositie, with your contentiousnes of peuish enuy, will not yeeld neyther to Prouinciall, nor to general Councel, neyther after their confirmation and receauing, so much more desperat then those Donatistes of whom he speaketh, as they had one Doctor, to wit, S. Cyprian, plainly of their opinion, and you haue nere a one: and yet will neither yéeld to all the Councels to­gether, but against them all come in with your ambages, and aske, But where is their Scripture? as here cap. 7. pag. 89. thin­king that you haue a witty deuise for this your tergiuersation, when you say: Pur. 430. The Councelles that are receiued, are therefore re­ceiued because they decreed truely: and not the truth receiued be­cause it was decreed in Councels. Else why is the determination of the Nicene Councell which is but one, beleeued, against tenne Councels holden by the Arrianes, but that the Nicene decreed ac­cording to the worde of God, & all the rest against it?’ You might aswell say: The Scriptures that are receiued, are therefore re­ceiued because they are written truely, and not the truth recei­ued because it is written in the Scriptures. Els why is the Gos­pel according to Mathew beléeued, and not the Gospel according to the twelue, but that the former is the word of God, and the o­ther is not? But we say, that the Scriptures being once receiued into the Canon, and the Councels being once receiued by the Sée Apostolike, what soeuer they say must be beléeued to be truth, and that then none but Heretikes do make exceptions against them. And that you therfore be an Heretike, who not onely against all Councels so receiued for these 900. yeres, but also against the very Nicene it selfe, which you your selfe receiue, do take your exception of Onely Scripture, and that as it were by authoritie of S. Augustine, cap. 9. pag. 179. and 173.180.

Motiue 12.28. See Apostolike.

Now for the Sée Apostolike it selfe (which as it was the con­firmer, so was it both the gatherer with the Emperours helpe, [Page 335] and also the President by the Patriarches and other Bishops, and sometimes Priestes also béeing her Vicares, of all ap­proued Generall Councells: what soeuer Ar. 97. you or any other Heretike affirme to the contrarie without any testimonie:) I saye in my 28. Demaunde, that none euer but Heretikes and Schismatikes did obstinately refuse eyther the fayth or the com­munion of that Sée. Beholde two notable examples, one vn­der Pope Victor about the question of Easter, the other vnder Pope Stephanus about the question of Heretikes Baptisme. We shall catche this Ratte in them through his owne rumb­ling. Victor anno 200. Ar. 27.36. Pur. 373. (saith he) was the first that went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches. He passed the bondes of his authoritie, in excommunicating of all the Churches of Asia. Then manye Bishoppes withstoode him, specially Ire­neus of Lyons, and Polycrates of Ephesus, as Eus. li. 5. c. 23.24.25. witnesseth Eusebius. But who sayth, that he eyther vsurped authoritie, or passed the bondes of his authoritie? No doubte Polycrates and his fellowes of Asia would so haue sayd if they had béene of your opinion about the Bishop of Rome, or if that Bishoppes authoritie ouer all▪ had not béene in those Primitiue dayes a playne matter. The Storie was thus: The Churches of Asia minor had receyued of S. Iohn Euangelist to kéepe oure Lords Pasch or Easter day not alwayes vpon Sonday, but with the Iewes, vpon the 14. of the Moone. In which custome the Bi­shops of Rome (who had receiued of S. Peter and Paule the other maner) did tolerate them, so long as it tended to the ho­nour of burying the Law, and not to the necessitie of obseruing the Lawe. But when they sawe that a Niceph. li. 4. ca. 36. necessitie was put therein, in so much that the other maner was condemned by the Iudaizing Heretike Tertul. d [...] Praes. Eus. li. 5. ca. 14 Blastus, then loe they thought good to tolerate them no longer, but S. Victor, after that his Niceph. li. 4. ca. 36. pre­decessours Pius, Anicetus, Eleutherius, had sent out decrées a­gainst that maner, and Eus. li. 5. ca. 22. all Bishops had ratified Decretum Ec­clesiasticum, the Ecclesiasticall Decree, seing that they of Asia nei­ther so obeied to walke vnto the truth of the Gospell, vsing seue­ritie when it was high tyme, commaunded them eyther to obey without any more adoe, or to be depriued of the Churches com­munion. Which censure of his did séeme to sharpe to S. Irenée [Page 336] and other Bishops of his owne obseruance. As now also if he would excommunicate them which receaue not the Counsel of Trent, it would séeme likewise to many, who notwithstanding confesse that he hath authoritie ouer all. But what was the end of the matter? At length folowed the first Nicene Councel, and confirmed the same that the Popes had commaunded: in their Epistle to them of Alexandria, writing this of the Asianes also: ‘ You shall vnderstand, Apud Theod. li. 1. ca. 9. that the controuersie of Easter is wisely pacified: in so much that all our Bretheren, that inhabite the East, will now hereafter with one accord in keping the same, followe the Romanes, vs, and all you.’ So they promised the Councel. And who so refused yet after that to do it, were counted obstinate He­retikes, Aug. Haer. 29. Soc. li. 6. ca. 10.20. Ar. 37. both in the Gréeke and Latine Church, named testarescai­decaticai, that is quartadecimane: some such being yet in Asia in S. Chrysostomes tyme, were by him, as Bishop of Constantinople, turned out of their Churches, no lesse then the Nouatianes.

Lykewise (saith Fulke, towching the other case) when Pope Stephanus threatned excōmunication to Helenus and Firmilia­nus, and almost all the Churches of Asia, because they thought that such as were baptized by Heretikes should be baptised a­gaine: Diony. Al. ep. ad Xy­stum Papā. Succes. Ste. apud Eus. li. 7. ca. 2.3 4.5. he was misliked by Dionisius of Alexandria and diuers o­ther godly Bishops. Cyprian also reproueth him very sharpely for the same opinion, accusing him of presumption and contu­macie, Cypr. ep. 74. Epist. ad Pompeium. And in his Epistle to Cyp. epi. 71. Quintus, he saith playnly, that Peter him selfe was not so arrogant, nor so presumptuous, that he would say, he held the Primacie, and that other men should obey him as his inferiours. You would make the Reader beléeue, that he there saith Peter had not the Prima­cie, wheras he saith expresly in the very same Periode, ‘ Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem edificauit Eccle­am suam, Peter whom our Lord chose the first, and vpon whom he buylded his Church.’ Neither he, nor Dionysius, nor Firmi­lianus denieth the Primacie of Peter, or of Stephanus his suc­cessor and a most glorious Martyr. They thought that they had reason and Scripture on their side, and the Pope nothing but authoritie and custome. And therevpon when he had written and commaunded to the contrarie, contra scripsisset at (que) praecepisset, they made much a doe for a while, and in anger (as S. Augustine [Page 337] writeth, poured out words against him. But in the end, Au. de bap. con. Dona. li. 5. ca. 23 25. when they must néedes eyther yéelde or be Schismatikes, because he would tolerate them no longer, they did like Catholike men, they conformed their new practise (for all their Councels both in Phrigia and in Africa) to the old custome that the Pope obser­ued, as I noted here in the 5. Dem. pag. 272. And at the last the Nicene Councel also gaue voyce with the Pope, and condemned the Donatists (who pretended to folowe S. Cyprian) of Heresie for their obstinacie.

Therfore these are two notable examples of vnitie with S. Peters chayre, as a thing most necessarie. And generally al other Catholike writers that you do (here cap. 9. pag. 218.) or can al­leage as it were against that Sée, did sticke vnseparably to that Sée. Aug. epist. 166. Which S. Augustine for that cause calleth Cathedram vni­tatis, The Chayre of vnitie, in which he saith God hath placed ‘ Doctrinam veritatis, the doctrine of veritie.’

But you for al this haue found a place in S. Hierom to breake this bond. For you say vpon it: Lo Syr, here is Pur. 374. Hier. Euag. Hovv agreeth this vvith him selfe here, cap. i. and ij. a Churche, and Christianitie, and a rule of trueth, without the Bishop of Rome, without the Church of Rome, yea and contrary to the Church of Rome. Notably gathered. For he saith the cleane contrarie. Nec altera Romanae vrbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est. ‘We muste not thinke that there is one Church of the Citie of Rome, another of all the world. But both is one. And why? be­cause the Galles, and the Brytons, and Affrica, and Persia, and the Orient, and India, and all the Barbarous Nations, Vnum Christū adorant, vnam obseruant regulam veritatis, Do worship the one Christ, do obserue the one rule of trueth, and so be not diuided from the one Church by any Schisme, nor by any Heresie.’ So perfect was the vnitie of all Catholikes at that time, which a­gréeth handsomly with your imaginations of local yea & vniuer­sall corruptions, here cap. 3. Now in this vnitie of trueth, yet was there diuersitie of vsages. In Rome a Priest was ordeined at the Deacons witnesse: which is now obserued euery where. Therupon, and specially for the great estimation of the Archdea­cons, some Deacons thought them selues higher in order then Priests. S. Hierom saith therfore: Quid mihi profers vrbis con­suetudinem? &c. What bring you me the custome of the Citie? If ‘ [Page 338] authoritie be sought, the world is greater then the Citie.’ And who doubteth, but the vsages of the whole Church in vnitie, be of gre­ter authoritie then the priuate custome of Rome alone? He tel­leth them also that a Bishop of the meanest Citie, is eiusdem Sa­cerdotij, of the same order as the Bishop of Rome, of Constanti­nople, of Alexandria. And consequently, that a Priest, who by his order may do all things that be of order, sauing onely giuing of orders, is of another maner of order then a Deacon. All this is most true, and much for vs, nothing for you.

You haue also a few textes of Scripture against this head of the Churches vnitie. But by the argument ab authoritate nega­tiue, which your owne Logike condemned here cap. 8. pag. 134. I would desire none other place in al the Scripture, Ar. 29. &c. but Eph. 4 of Apostles, Euangelistes, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers. And especially seing the Apostle both there and 1. Cor. 12. by these of­fices proueth the vnitie of mind, he acknowledgeth no Pope as one supreme head in earth, which might be very profitable (as the Papists say) to mainteine this vnitie. Which he would in no wise haue omitted, Pur. 450. &c. Againe: We beleue that the Catholike Church hath no chiefe gouernour vpon earth but Christ, vnto whom all power is giuen in heauen and earth, Mat. 28. Supreme head and chiefe gouernour be termes of your owne schole. Belike therfore you would, as a Puritane, pull down also your owne setting vp, specially Suppose also one Christian king or Empe­rour to raigne sometime as far as the Church reacheth.considering that Kings or Quéenes be no more then Popes named among S. Paules officers. And truely you might also as an Anabaptist pull downe all Gouernours no lesse then the chiefe, by that reason of Christes power ouer all. You might also denie Euangelistes and Pastors (which are named Ephe. 4.) because they are omitted 1. Cor. 12. Likewise Powers, Healers, Helpers, Gouernments, Tongues, Interpreters, (which are named 1. Cor. 12. with Apostles, Prophets and Teathers) because they are omitted Ephes. 4. I must often say, you vnderstande not the Scripture, you do so often vtter your ignorance. Our Sauiour did say after his Resurrection to his Apostles, ‘ All power is giuen to me in heauen and earth,’ to signifie that he might with good au­thoritie cōmit what power to thē he would, inferring thervpon, Ite ergo, Go ye therefore, and teach and baptize Eche of the tvvelue had Apostolike po­vver ouer all. all Nations. And to one of them singularly, Feede my Lambes, and my sheepe. [Page 339] Wherefore S. Paule also in those two places doth say, that all diuersitie of giftes and offices is, ‘ Secundum mensuram donatio­nis Christi, according to the measure that it pleased Christ to giue to euery one, and the holy Ghost to diuide to euery one as him pleaseth. Therefore no cause why the lesser should enuy the grea­ter, or the greater despise the lesser Schismatically, but all in v­nitie content them selues with Christes distribution, specially béeing so made by him for the necessitie and good of the whole.’ He had therefore in suche places to expresse the diuersitie of greater and lesser: but not necessarily of the greatest and least. And yet to stoppe such Hereticall mouthes, he saith 1. Cor. 12. expresly, ‘ Non potest caput dicere pedibus, The head (vnder Christ) can not say to the feete, you are not necessarie vnto me. Also Ephe. 4. in the name of Apostles, he includeth the Successours of the Apostle S. Peter, whose Sée for that cause is called The Apostolike See in singuler maner, and their Decrees and Actes estéemed of A­postolike authoritie, in all antiquitie, I say of S. Peters autho­ritie, to whose Chayre cōparing it with the Chayre of Carthage, S. Augustine doth ascribe Apostolatus principatum, The princi­palitie of Apostleship, Apostolicae Cathedrae principatum, Au. de bap. con. Dona. li. 2. ca. 1. Epist. 162. The principalitie of the Chayre Apostolike, which (saith he) hath al­wayes florished in the Romane Church.’

All this considered, no reasonable man can doubt, but this present plague and thraldome of the Gréekes is fallen vpon them (and the like or worse to fall vpon the like) for their departing from the Church of Rome, as it was foretolde them full often: though you counte it false and vnreasonable so to say. And why? Pur. 396. because the Affricanes were plagued and subuerted for other sinnes. So substantiall are your reasons. As if you would say: Ten Tribes were not subuerted for their Schisme, because the two Tribes were subuerted for other sinnes.

29. Traditions. Motiue 9.

The 29. Demaund mentioneth, that the Apostles left to the Church not Onely Scripture (as Fulke would proue by the Scriptures and Fathers here cap. 8. pag. 100. to 110. and cap. 9. pag. 171. to 183. which all I haue aunswered,) but also vnwrit­ten Traditions, wherof no one is against vs, and many of them [Page 340] so directly against the Protestants, that although he cōfesse them, (as, for exāple, the memorie of the dead in the Canon of y ^e Masse) to haue the most approued Fathers testimonie to be Traditions Apostolike, here cap. 3. pag. 15. to 20. yet he is fayne to denie that eyther they or any Traditions at al be of the Apostle, ca. 7. pa. 80. to 89. So as neuer did the Catholikes (I say in this Demaund) but onely Heretikes.

Pur. 383.409.412.But against this I find that he alleageth a saying of S. Irene, as though by his iudgement we rather be (Valentinian) Here­tikes, who (with the Fathers, here cap. 3. & 7. pag. 19. & 84. be­sides Scripture do holde with Tradition of vnwritten verities. And Lord, how he croweth against D. Allen, for alleaging the same saying against the Protestantes, vpon their denying of the Machabées: not considering, that by S. Irenée there they no more be Heretikes, who will haue Tradition, then they who wil haue Scripture. Iren. li. 3. ca. 2.3. S. Irenée him selfe, as all Catholikes, will haue both. But those old Heretikes would in effect (saith he) haue neither: ‘Neque Scripturis iam neque Traditioni consentire, &c. They would yeeld neither to the Scriptures nor to Tradition. For whē they be confuted out of the Scriptures, they turne to accuse the Scriptures thē selues, as though they be corrupted, nor be not Ca­nonicall, and that they be ambiguous, and that out of them can not be found the ( sincere) trueth by such as know not the Tradi­tion: because that was not deliuered by writings ( but a certayne mingle mangle: and the sincere truth) by word of mouth.’ Well then, saith the Catholike, let vs hardly try by Tradition. What do they then? they say, that the Apostles either them selues knew not all things, or that they taught their Successors of one sort in open place, and these mens Patriarches in secret of another sort. ‘Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem, &c. And when againe to that Tradition which is from the Apostles, which is conserued in the Churches, by Successions of the Priestes, we prouoke those ( Heretikes) who are aduersaries to Tradition ( as the former were to Scripture:) they will say, that they beeing wyser then not onely the Priestes, but also the Apostles, haue found the sin­cere truth. Aduersus tales certamen nobis est, O dilectissime, A­gainst suche we haue to fight, O my dearest, who as slipery as snakes seeke on euery side to flye. What way shall we then take [Page 341] with them? Traditionem Apostolorum in toto mundo manife­statam, in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audi­re He that list to heare lyes, may séeke to these Heretikes and the secrete Tradition which they pretend.’ ‘ But all that will heare the truth, may in the Church see the Apostles Tradition whiche was published in the whole world. Et habemus annumerare, And we can reherse them, who were of the Apostles ordeined Bishops in the Churches, and their Successors euen vnto vs. Who taught nor knew no such thing as these men dote vpon. For if the Apo­stles had knowen straunge mysteries, which they taught the per­fect Seorsim & latenter ab reliquis, apart from the rest, and pri­uilie: no doubt they would haue committed them specially to those, to whom they committed also the Churches. And then, be­cause it is to long (he saith) to rehearse al Successions, he recko­neth the Successors of S. Peter and Paule in the greatest and aun­cientest, and knowen to all men, in the Romaine Church, Whose Tradition which she hath from the Apostles, comming euen vn­to vs by Successions of Bishops, we reporting, confundimus om­nes eos, do confound all Heretikes and Schismatikes. Et est plenissima haec ostensio, And this is a most full demonstration, that it is al one quickening faith, which from the Apostles is kept in the Church till now, and deliuered in trueth. Loe now Syr, who hath such yll grace to alleage the Doctors against him selfe?’ For who denieth (here cap. 9. pag. 165.) the authoritie of suche Scriptures as are Canonized by the Church which himselfe con­fesseth to be the true Church? Who also refuseth the Tradition and saith (I say not, by those Heretikes pretended, but euen) of the Apostolike Churches, euen of the Romaine Church, and not now onely, but then also when your selfe do graunt that it was the true Church? As for vs, we reiect neither y ^e Churches Scrip­tures, nor the Churches Tradition, but answere all that you de­tort to maynteine your Heresies, and restore it to the right mea­ning.

30 Their owne Doctors. Motiue 16.

That the Apostles, and all men and things that be of them, are against our Protestantes, and in no poynt with them a­gainst vs, it is many wayes shewed by the aforesaid. Besides all these, I note in the next Demaund, also their owne masters and [Page 342] felowes, namely Luther and Caluine, to haue condemned them: Such leaders hath our miserable Countrey chosen to followe, forsaking the sure guydance of Gods Church, in which our Fore­fathers together with the Catholikes of all other Countries so many ages before prospered in earth, and atchiued to heauen.

31.32.33. Vniuersalitie, Antiquitie, and Consent.

In thrée Demaundes following I do shewe that the rules of Vniuersalitie, Antiquitie, and Consent, taught by Vincentius Lirinensis and the other Fathers, doe make for vs, and against the Protestantes. Which is so playne, that Fulke is faine to re­fuse those rules, abusing a saying of S. Augustines, as it were for Onely Scripture against them (here cap. 7. pag. 80. and cap. 9. pag. 180.)

Motiue 10.11.28. Arti. 15.26.34. Authoritie

The Protestantes finding the Primitiue Church (whiche they dare not denie, but it was the true Church, here cap. 2.) to be in many poyntes so playnly against them, that they must con­fesse it them selues, (as here cap. 3.) do hold, that the true Church may erre vniuersally, and also did erre, cap. 3.4. And therefore make their exception against it also, cap. 7. pa. 89. And that with pretence of Scripture to warrant their so doing, cap. 8. pag. 117. vnto which I haue fully answered. Herevpon in my 34. Dem. I affirme, that the vniuersall Churches authoritie was alwayes counted so irrefragable, that she would be and was beléeued vp­pon her onely word in all matters, before she yéelded or we could conceiue the reasons of her doctrine. And that S. Augustine wrote a booke vpon this against the Manichées, which he called De vtilitate credendi, Of the vtilitie of beléeuing first, before you vnderstand. Aug. retra. li. 1. ca. 14. ‘ Because his friend Honoratus béeing a Manichée, did irride in the discipline of the Catholike faith, quod iuberentur homines credere, that men were commaunded to beleue, and not taught by certentie of the groundes (certissima ratione) what was true.’ Which to our Doctor Fulke is so strange, that of D. Allen, saying he taketh it to be the naturall order of a Christian schole, Pur. 4.5. he requireth to shew where he learned that methode, & affirmeth S. Paule Rom. 10. to teach a cōtrary order, and calleth it a blind [Page 343] faith which must be thrust vpon mens consciences, to be accepted before they see what ground it hath. Whereas S. Paule doth not say, that men must vnderstand the groundes of euery matter be­fore they beléeue (for that were contrary to his owne doing, who did not alwayes to all at the first speake wisedome, 1. Cor. 2. but that they must heare first y ^e Churches preaching, to know which be the articles, before they can beléeue them. And that is it which we say, that hearing what the Church teacheth, they may be bold to beleue it forthwith, although they heare not or can not attaine to the groundes: euen as they which heard Christ him selfe, and his Apostles after him, might boldly beléeue them. As he also did worke those Myracles in the beginning to commend his own authoritie & credite, and thereby to draw vnto him a multitude, which multitude should alwayes after him moue the worlde to beleeue, as Myracles did at the first. Au. de vtil. cred. ca. 13. S. Augustine in that booke deduceth this at large, and concludeth: ‘Rectè igitur Ca­tholicae disciplinae maiestate institutum est, vt accedentibus ad Religionem fides persuadeatur ante omnia: It is rightly therefore apoynted by the maiestie of the Catholike Churches Schole, that they which come to Religion, be first and formost moued ( or per­swaded by certayne generall motiues) to beleeue.’

Wherefore I say, that the Protestantes can not possibly be the Church, because they do renounce the claime of suche au­thoritie. I say also, that neyther they nor no other secte in the world is so happy & sure of their faith, as we be, hauing a Schoole and Masters that we may boldly beléeue in all thinges, because Christ hath geuen them the Spirite of truth, Ioan. 14. and to vs also ac­cordingly (sayth D. Allen) the spirite of obedience. But therunto Fulke answereth, as more at large, here cap. 7. pag. 90. That also the Protestantes wil be ruled by their Superiours. What, simply? Ar. 58. so farre as their Superiours are ruled by Gods word. Any other submission they allowe not. O humble submission of yours, who will ouerrule your Superiours as it were by Gods word: and O worthy authoritie of theirs, who by your owne cōfession may swarue from the truth of Gods word. ‘ But howsoeuer the Pro­testantes are affected to their Superiours, the Greeke Church (with the Moschouites and Russianes) in doubtes wil be ruled by their Patriarche of Constantinople, and so will the rest of the [Page 344] Orientall Churches by their chiefe Patriarches & Bishops: though they be not of our felowship and Catholike communion: So you say.’ But if you knewe the storie of the Florentine Councell, wherein their Patriarches agréed with the Catholike Latines in all thinges, and yet could not for all that reduce their Coun­tries from Schisme, you would not so say.

Ar. 83.84.And as towching your grammaticatiō vpon the article of our Créed, I beleeue the H. Catholike Church, I haue shewed plainly (cap 8. pag. 138) out of antiquitie, that the meaning of it is, accor­ding to this presēt demaund, I beleue in the H. Catholike Church. And therefore you erre where you say: To beleeue all and euery thing that the Catholike Church, by commō consent doth main­tayne, is no article of our faith. And is not this a goodly interpre­tation which you bring, We say & confesse against all Heretikes and Schismatikes, I beleeue that there is a Catholike Church, or that God hath an Vniuersall Congregation? For, what Heretike and Scismatike may not say the same? And what Catholike may not also cōfesse that there is a Lutherane Church? The meaning of the Créede is as I haue sayd, I beléeue that to be the true Church, whose name is Catholike (as in the Articles afore going, I beléeue that Christ which is named Iesus, and that God who is the Creator) and I beléeue all which the same Church doth bid me to beléeue, as being the mouth of the Holy Ghost, and by her (being the communion or company of the Holy, so that none be Holy which do not cōmunicate with her) I beléeue that we haue remission of our sinnes in the Sacramentes, and shall haue Re­surrection of our bodies in glorie, and for euer afterwardes in Soule and Bodye together lyfe euerlasting. All which is the worke of our Sanctification, and appropriated in the Créede to the Holy Ghost, as our redemption to the Sonne, and Creation to the Father. In calling this a foolish and false interpretation, you do but vtter your ignorance in the auncient Doctors. They are the boyes that you count worthy to haue many stripes for their construing it otherwise then thus, I beleeue that there is a Catholike Church. Suppose the Apostles had said, Credo S. Ro­manam Ecclesiam, how would you haue construed it? not, I be­leue that there is a Romane church, for so much you may confesse being yet a Protestant, but, I beleeue the Romane Church. And [Page 345] what should that meane, but as I haue here sayd out of the Fa­thers? As also, against all Apocriphalles, to say, ‘ Credo Sanctas Scripturas Canonicas. I beleeue the H. Canonicall Scriptures.’ I­tem against Manicheus, Montanus, Luther, and all other false­named Apostles or Euangelists of Christ, to say, ‘Credo S S. Duo­decim Apostolos, Credo S S. quatuor Euangelistas, I beleeue the H. Twelue Apostles, I beleeue the H. Fower Euangelistes.’

35 Vnitie. Motiue 27. Arti 15.17.

Well, of this irrefragable authoritie of Gods Church ouer vs, and of our humble submission againe and affection vnto it, procedeth (I say in my next Demaund) our inseperable vnitie, Aug. cōtra Epi. Fund. ca. 4. Ioan. 17. whiche S. Augustine in his Motiues to the Manichies calleth Confentionem Populorum, at (que) Gentium, Consenting of Peo­ples, and Nations in one. Which Christ in his prayer for it, ac­compteth a most iust motiue for the world to beleeue in him. But Fulke notwithstanding, because his Protestantes haue it not, Ar. 93. nor can not possibly atteyne vnto it, telleth vs, that also the Ma­hometistes and Turkes haue their Vnitie. As though Christ, or S. Augustine, or we, did speake of any other then Vnitie of Christi­an People and in Christian faith. And if any Heresie among the Christians haue had their vnitie also, that doth no more but de­clare, that the same Heresie, whatsoeuer it were, might, for this at the least, claime the true Church better then the Protestantes.

For another shifte he sayeth: Ar. 107. that the Church may be called the howse of peace, because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest Articles of the Faith. By which reason he might say, that very many of the old Heresies were within the Howse of Peace, because they agréed with the Church in the chéefest Ar­ticles. But we say that any one Article, be it of the chéefest or of the meanest, may breake y ^e peace, as quartadecimani did disagrée onely in the day of Easter, and many other like in S. Augustines Catalogue of Heresies to Quodvultdeus. And therefore it hel­peth his side nothing, that he saith to excuse their diuision, Ar. 63.61.62.10.58.96.103. that the Lutherans & Zuinglians do differ but in one matter, and that not the greatest, to wit, concerning the Sacrament, the one affir­ming a Real presence, the other denying it. Be it so, that among them are no more but these two Sectes, and betwéene these no [Page 346] more difference (which yet is most false, as not onely large ta­bles of their names set out by Catholikes, but also innumerable Bookes about innumerable matters set out be them selues a­gainst one another, and euen their own Puritanes now at home do notoriously declare.) One matter, I say, is inough, yea also if it be but a ceremonie, though you say of some of yours, They dif­fer onely in Ceremonies, which can not diuide them from the faith. Yes Syr, when they holde their owne Ceremonies to be necessarie, or condemne the Churches Ceremonies as vnlawful, as those Quartadecimani did, they are Heretikes, and therefore diuided from the faith. Howbeit also diuision is made sometimes without any disagréemēt so much as in a ceremonie, as whē it is a méere Schisme, & not mixt with any Heresie at all. Such were the Schismes that were towards among the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 3.4. swel­ling one against another, onely vpon their Baptizars and Tea­chers. And therefore what is the matter that you differ in, for­ceth not. Onely if you diuide your selues, and will not come to one anothers Churches, where is your vnitie:

As for difference of opinions betwene our Canonists and Di­uines, or also betwene our Schole Diuines among them selues, it is (as I said in the 8. Dem. pag. 283. all without diuision, all in vnitie, Aug. cōtra Iul. li. 1. c. 2. De bap. cō. Donat. li. 1. ca. 18. all no otherwise then as S. Augustine saith: ‘ Some­time also the most learned and best defenders, regulae Catholicae, of the Catholike rule, do without breaking the frame of fayth not accorde, and diuers be of diuers iudgementes without anye breake of peace, vntill a generall Councell allowe some one parte for cleare and pure.’ Suche was the difference of S. Cy­prian & his fellowes from the other Catholikes about Baptisme (here in the 28. Dem.) And suche was the difference betwéene some about the Popes or Councels superioritie, before the Flo­rentine Councell, which by your owne confession (here cap. 6. pag. 70.) resolued the matter. But your differences, we say, are with diuision, with pertinacie, without end: a generall Coun­cell can not finish them: yea to nourish them for euer, your very doctrine is, that in Church or Generall Councell is no autho­ritie of such importance.

36 Owners and keepers of the Scriptures. Moti. 8.30. Articl. 2.3.

My next Demaund to the Protestantes, is S. Augustines Demaund to the Manichies, which D. Allen doth prosequute in two Articles. And it is grounded vpon the foresaide authoritie of the Church. Aug. cōtra Ep. Fund. ca. 5. If thou shouldest meete with one (saith S. Au­gustine to a Manichee) who doth not yet beleeue the bookes of the Gospell, what wouldest thou doo to him saying vnto thee, Non credo, I do not beleeue them? ‘ As of his owne selfe he there sayth: Ego vero Euangelio non crederem, nisi me Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae commoueret authoritas. I verily shoulde not beleeue the Gospell, but that the Catholike Churches authoritie did make me. And then he gathereth therevppon, and asketh, Quibus ergo obtemperaui dicentibus, crede Euangelio, cur eis non obtemperem dicentibus mihi, Noli credere Manichaeo? Those therefore to whom I obeyed saying, Beleeue the Gospell: Why should I not obey the same men saying vnto me, Do not beleeue Manicheus, do not beléeue Luther? Nowe to this what shifte hath Fulke?’ He can not denie, but that our Demaunde is vpon that Churth whiche is called Catholike, nowe (accor­ding to my sixte Demaunde, pag. 227.) as S. Augustines De­maunde was vpon that Church whiche was called Catholike then, and as muche maligned of those Manichees, as nowe of these Protestantes. Neither can hee shewe, but that as it hath still the same name, so it is still the same Churche, as I haue defended agaynst all his vayne Cauilles eyther out of the Scriptures (cap. 8. pag. 124.) or out of the Doctors (cap. 9. pag. 155.) And therefore béeing still all one Churche, you shall sée, if you marke, that he sayth in his aunswere nothing of the one, but it is common to the other: and that it is all one for vs to frame our Demaund of the Catholike Church then, Ar. 10. and of the Catholike Church now. For thus he sayth: The Primi­tiue Churches testimonie of the worde of God we allowe and beleeue. But I deny, that the Primitiue Church dyd affirme Lu­ther to be an Heretike, or the doctrine which he taught, which we holde, to be Heresie. Here you denie it, but in other pla­ces you confesse it, where you graunt that they affirmed Ae­rius to bee an Heretike for denying prayer for the dead, [Page 348] and were fayne therevpon to take exception against the same Primitiue Church by your colde shift of Only Scripture, cap. 7. pag. 79. Tell vs then (we say) why we should obey the same Primitiue Church commaunding vs to beleue the Gospell, and not obey it commaunding vs not to beléeue Aerius, Iouinianus, Vigilantius, &c. (cap. 3. pag. 9. to 14.) and consequently not to be­leue Luther, nor to care for all your carping (in these two Arti­ticles) of her Images and Inuocation of Saintes, of her Sacrifice, of her estimation of Customes, Traditions, writings of Doctors, Decrees of Popes and Councels, of her auncient Latine Transla­tion, of her corrupting either of the text of the Testament, or of the true Religion conteined therein, of her not translating of the Scriptures into all vulgar tongues, of her workes of supereroga­tion, Abbeys, Priories, and Chauntries. For touching all these things, either it is euident in it selfe, or in sundry places eyther you haue confessed, or I haue proued, or at least I haue defended that they were the Primitiue Churches also, no lesse then they be the Churches nowe, answering whatsoeuer obiections you haue brought against them.

Ar. 5.Againe you say, As for the Popish Church, she is so blind that she can not discerne betwene the Canonicall bookes of the Scrip­rere, from the Apocryphall writings: as appeareth by receiuing the bookes of the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, &c. to be of equall authoritie with the bookes of the Law, Psalmes, &c. The Popish Church that Canonized those bookes, was y ^e Primitiue (although ye call them Heretikes which did it) as I haue shewed playnly, Pur. 214. and by your owne confession, cap. 9. pag. 165. and that you are fayne to saye, that also the Primitiue Church therein did erre. ‘ S. Augustine therefore, as he saith to the Manichie denying the Actes of the Apostles, Cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo Euangelio: quoniam vtram (que) Scripturam similiter mihi Catho­lica commendat authoritas. I must needes beleue this booke, if I beleue the Gospell: because the Catholike authoritie commen­deth vnto me both those Scriptures alike: so he saith vnto you denying the Machabées, Ecclesiasticus, Iudith, &c.’ I must néedes beléeue them if I beléeue the Gospell: because they also be in the Canon of the same Church: as he telleth you playnly here cap. 9. pag. 165. And therefore they are but words, when you said ere­while, [Page 349] We allow and beleeue the Primitiue Churches testimonie of the word of God. And againe: Ar. 10.9. We haue most steadfast assu­rance of Gods Spirite, for the authoritie of Gods booke, with the testimonie of the true Church in all ages: and so we know it to be true. You beleue the Gospell for the Churches testimonie, euen as much as the Manichies did: because you reiect her autho­ritie & Canon in other bookes, as they did in the Actes. And there­fore againe you do but condemne your selfe, when you say: Ar. 4.5. The Church of Christ commended the bookes of holy Scriptures to be beleeued of all true Christians. And againe: The Church of Christ hath of the holy Ghost a iudgement to discerne the word of God of infallible veritie, from the writing of men which might erre. In so saying you both iustifie vs, who as we confesse that Church, so we beleue her Canon, and condemne your selues, who confesse it to be the true Church, and yet deny her Canon, yea and generally her authoritie (here in the 34. Dem.) holding stiffely, that she may erre, and did erre in many things, and therfore ma­king Only Scripture your ground for all things. Wherin how contrarie you be to your selfe, any man may sée, and I must note it in the next Chapter. In the meane time I note, Cap. 11. cō ­tradict. 33.34.35. Ar. 8. that you shew your selues not to be the Church that cōmaunded S. Augustine to beleue the Gospell, in that you say fréely: We do not chalenge credite to our selues, in any poynt, so presumptuously as the Pa­pistes, that men must beleue it because we affirme it: but because we proue it to be true by the worde of God. By what place of Scripture did either the Primitiue Catholike Church proue to S. Augustine, or could you proue to the Manichée, the Actes of the Apostles to be of Canonicall authoritie? The true Church of all times is of like authoritie, and therfore that which was not pre­sumption then, is not presumption now.

But what will not your terme of Only Scripture serue you vnto? when by it you argue & say: Ar. 6. Our Congregation hath euer had both right and possession of the Scriptures: as appeareth by this, that our Church & Congregation beleueth nothing but that she learneth in them. And that be not a notable plea to proue a right and a possession, yea and a continual possession, I report me to your Lawyers. What a forehead and face haue you, to say, A substantiall lye. that your companie had euermore possession of the Bible? Is it [Page 350] not euident, that Luther and all that are come of him, tooke their Bibles of the Papistes? Leaue your impudent facing: it is not your new vpstart Congregation, it is our Catholike Romane Church, which hath continually kept her possession of this Trea­sure, which she receiued of the Apostles. She it is that reiecteth no one booke therof: she it is, that with Gods spirite hath kept them from corruption of all Heretikes. Ar. 5. If also the Arrians, Donatists, Nouatians, Eutichians, and other Heretiks, receiued all the bookes of Scripture, What doth that proue, but only, that those Heretiks should rather be the true church, then you, and that we might not vse against them this piece of our argument, as we doe against you: but this rather, that they had those Scriptures of vs, and ca­ryed them out with them whē they went out from vs. So did al­so the Greeke Church, Ar. 6. and other Esterne Churches of Asia, and therefore If vnto this day they haue kept them neuer so safely, they are not for all that the true Church. Euery Article of D. Allens is not to proue absolutely, that we be y ^e church, but some only, that you be not the Church. When our Church was oppug­ned by other enemies, she knew what she had then also to do. So she had, & hath her proper Motiues against the Iewes: and there­fore it is a wise Demaund of yours, when you say, Why are not the Iewes, the Catholike Church, which haue kept the old Testa­ment in Hebrue, more faithfully then euer the Papistes? We doe not now encounter with the Iewes, but presupposing the Reli­gion and Church that Christ and his Apostles did institute, to be true, we geue plaine notes, how a man may know, that the Pro­testāts haue it not, (as because they deny some Canonical bookes of Scripture, & the Churches authoritie which is the foundation of the Canon.) And therefore that no wise man should be moued when he heareth them to claime it (and that by pretēce of Scrip­ture, and false carde of Onely Scripture) from vs who doe so faithfully beléeue, and haue so vncorruptibly keapt all the bookes of the same. As for the Iewes old Testament, I towched your blindnes therein cap. 7. pag. 103. sufficiently, and also your des­perate impudencie (pag. 103.) in charginge the Church with reiecting of the Scriptures.

37. Stoarehouse of all Trueth. Motiue 29.

As in our Church at this day a man may find all y ^e holy bookes which the Church in old time layed vp in her Canon thereof: so likewise all other Truthes (I say in my next Demaunde) which in any of her Councels or otherwise she ruled ouer & canonized at any time against any Heresie of her rebells, or against any er­ror of her owne obedient children: & that y ^e Protestantes & all o­ther Heretikes haue no truth among them, but they had it of our Church: which Church therefore, I say, is now and euer, and she onely, the Stoarehouse both of Canonicall Scripture, Iren. cōtra Heraeses. li. 3 ca. 4. and of all trueth beside. ‘ And therefore againe (as S. Irenée saith) Non o­portet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatē, quam facile est ab Ec­clesia sumere, No man must yet ( after all these most euident De­monstrations) seeke the Trueth among any others, which they may so easily take of the Churth, because it is Depositorium di­ues, the riche Stoarehouse of the Apostles.’

38 Old Heresies. Motiue 4.

Among the Protestants, on the contrary side, I say, that there are to be founde very many of the Olde condemned Heresies. Which is so playne, that Fulke confesseth (here cap. 3.) Aerius, Iouinianus, and Vigilantius, to haue bene counted Here­tikes of the true auncient Church, for sundry opinions of theirs, nowe reuiued by the Protestantes. And therefore is fayne (cap. 7. pag. 80.) for his owne cause to goe about to defende them, partly with his stale of Only Scripture (cap. 7. pag. 80.) to the which I haue made aunswere cap. 8. pag. 110. and cap. 9. pag. 171. partely with abusing sundrie places of the Scrip­tures, and of the same Fathers which condemned those Here­tikes, to the which I haue answered cap. 8. and 9. partly also with more insolencie to charge those Fathers rather as defen­ding Heresie agaynst Aerius, &c. (cap. 3.) wherevnto I haue an­swered cap. 6. sauing that the two Heresies which he layeth to them that hold with the Machabées and with Traditions (as the Fathers do cap. 9. pag. 165. & cap. 3.7. pa. 12.85.) I haue answered in this present chap. in the 36. & 29. Demaunds. And so with one labour I haue cléered both the Fathers & our selues together, not [Page 352] to be Gnostici, Valentinians, Carpocratians, Collyridians, Ossenes, Caianes, in our Traditions, in our Crosses and other Images, in our Inuocation of Angels and Sants and worship­ping of their Relikes: nor to be Manichées, Tiacianistes, Mon­tanistes, Aerians, in our Abstinence and Fastingdayes, in our single life: nor Gentiles, Carpocratians, Origenists, Heracleo­nites, Montanistes, in our name of Sacrifice, in our Purgatory, Anealing, and praying for the dead: nor Arrians in our beeres for burying. For such is his modesty and Christianity and truth, to charge the Pillers of Christ with such heresies, yea and more­ouer to saye generally, (as I noted cap. 3. pag. 9.) that if the Gen­tiles or Heretikes had any thing that seemed to haue a shewe of pietie or charitie, they woulde drawe it into vse: whiche was the greate corrupting of those auncient tymes. That we maye nowe be more content to heare him charge vs, and say with all generalitie that is possible: Pur. 287. In all tymes when soe­uer, and wheresoeuer, was any peese of miste, or darke corner (though all the rest were light) there were the steppes of your walke. Which two golden sayings of his, procéede of these two diuine opinions of their new Gospel, that the Primitiue Church should prepare the way to Antichrist, and that Christes Vicare should be Antichrist. Wherof I haue spoken ynough cap. 8. and 9. Such opinions must vtter such sayings. And yet not able for all that, truely to charge the Church either Primitiue or of later time, with so much as one point of Antichristianisme or Heresie, as partly I haue declared cap. 6. and now wil declare for the rest. They are such matters as agrée no otherwise to vs, then to them whom he dare not to condemne, and therfore not in the same ma­ner as to the old Heretikes.

Ar. 21.22. Epiph. s. 3. Haer. 80. 1. Cor 11. Hier. in E­zech. 44. Of the Messalians or Martyrians, you lerned (saith he) to shaue your beardes, and to let your lockes grow long, Comas muliebres producunt, They kepe their heare long, like women. Do we so? Be our heades like womens long heades? womens heads bylike are rounded heades: or S. Paule did meane that men should poll their heades, Ita ad pressum tondentes vt rasorum similes vide­antur, Cutting them so neare the skin that they should be like to shauen heades. Or do not some Protestantes weare round heads and shaue their beardes, as well as some Catholikes: and some [Page 353] Catholikes, euen also the Cleargie in Italie and Spayne, weare beardes and polled heades, as well as some Protestantes? Epi­phanius noteth it in those Monkes, because they did it, in conten­tione, of contention, and at that time and in that place, when and where the Apostles statutes and the Churches orders were to the contrarie, as yet they be touching womanly heades, but not also euery where touching shauen beardes. It is a signe, that you a­bounde with substantiall stuffe against vs, that you lay our heares to our charge. Nothing was wont with you to be heresie, vnlesse it could be proued contrarie to expresse Scripture, Sup. dem. 36. (so ea­sily we might answere all, by your principles) and that also ex­cepting ceremonies. Yet now conformitie and obedience to com­ly order for lacke of better matter must go for heresie. Sée, whe­ther we do not more substātially charge you with the Messalians heresie, for saying, that the Sacraments, and namely Baptisme, Theo Haer. fab. li. 4. Dam. Haer. 80. Eucharist, and Orders, do not conferre grace. Reade Theodo­rete and Damascene.

Of the Pharisees you receiued your superstitious masking gar­ments, which you call Amictus, Dalmaticus, and Pallia, as witnes­seth Epiphanius in his Epistle to Acacius and Paulus. Doth not also your owne order appoynt speciall and gorgeous garmentes in the ministrations? And that in the Primitiue Church also were such, I haue shewed here in the 21. Demaund: and by name, if you will, you may reade of the Deacons Dalmatica and Alba, to be worne in the time of the oblation, and lesson out of the Gospell, Con. Carth. 4. cap. 41. as also in other places both of them and the rest. You might as well, or also better haue brought this against the Leuiticall garments in the ministeries of the Iudai­call Temple. Epipha. ep. ante lib. de Haer. & Haer. 15.16. You do not consider that Epiphanius there repor­teth the seuen sectes of the Iewes, and describeth them, namely the Scribes and the Pharisées, in their common daily garments, being Stolae siue Pallia, and Dalmaticae siue amicula, as we might say, cassocks and gownes or clokes vpon them, with simbriae, frin­ges commaunded Nu. 15. Deut. 22. to haue made for ostentation of holines certayne superstitious additions & enlargementes, by which our Sauiour, Mat. 23. doth note their hipocrisie. Doth not this make sore against holy vestments in the Seruice of God?

An other sect of the Iewes were Hemerobaptistae (touched by [Page 354] our Sauiour Mar. 7. Epipha. ep. ad Acac. & Paulum. & Haer. 17.) who said, Neminē assequi vitam aeternam nisi qui quotidie baptizaretur, None to obtaine life euerlasting, but such a one as were baptized (or washed) euery day. Of these were deriued your holy water, saith Fulke to vs, which you say you vse to put men in mind of their Baptisme. O I sée our fault: although we baptize but once for life euerlasting, yet we would haue men to remember it euery day. S. Paule deceaued vs Rom. 6. he was to blame. As also to tell vs that the Creatures of God are Sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, 1. Tim. 4. Spe­cially to attribute so passing muche to the prayers of the holy Ghost, that is, to the prayers of the Church, encouraging vs, and saying: Rom. 8. ‘ the Holy Ghost also doth helpe our weaknes, praying for vs with groanes vnspeakable,’ as he that knoweth the hartes of the Catholike Church can tell, howsoeuer blinde Heretikes do thinke, that God will do nothing by water for prayer.

Epip. Haer. 19.Againe he sayeth: Of the Ossenes (who were another sect of the Iewes) you tooke the great estimation of water, salte, oyle, bread, &c. And vse to sweare by them, as they did. You do not charge vs, I trow, as teching this swering in cōmon talke with­out truth or without cause. Nor you be not, I trow, an Anabap­tist, to condemne eyther all swearing, or swearing by Creatures. What besides these you should meane to charge vs withall, I know not. ‘But I know what Epiphanius chargeth the Ossenes withall, to wit, for frequentinge othes, as we do prayers, and that for diuine honor of septem testes, seuen witnesses prescribed vnto them by their master Elxai, which were these: Salt, Water, Earth, Bread, Heauen, Ayer, and Winde. At another time these: Heauen, Water, Spirits, the holy Angels of prayer, Oyle, Salte, and Earth, but in no case fire.’ Therefore if Catholikes be not plaine Ossens, I report me to you.

‘ The same Elxai prescribed a prayer, saying in the booke of his fables: Let no man seeke the interpretation, but onely say these words in his prayer: [Abac anid moib nochile daasim ani daasim nochile moib anid abac selam.]’ Of him therfore we lear­ned (saith Fulke) to cōmaund the people to pray in an vnkno­wen tongue. Epiphanius sheweth, that his prayer was nothing at all when it was interpreted. Belike the Pater noster and Aue, are such: or els the Priuate prayers of the Corinthians in [Page 355] more strange tongues then the Latin is to the people of the La­tin Church, which yet S. Paule commendeth, as I shewed in the 22. Dem. But he commeth also to our publike prayer and saieth: Epip. Haer. 34. The Marcosians, when they baptized (after their strange maner mentioned here cap. 6. pag. 50.) vsed to speake certaine Hebrue wordes, quae magis admirationi sint, that the ignorant people might maruel the more at them: as you do in Baptisme, Ephata, &c. Mar. 7. Euen as truly as S. Marke in his Gréeke Gospell sayeth the same in the very same maner with the interpretation, Ambro. de Sac. li. 1. c. 1. Apoc. 19. as we do in Baptisme, and as in S. Ambrose time also we did, to be (for­sooth) maruelled at the more: Epphatha, quod est, adaperire, which is to say, Be thou opened. ‘And as S. Iohn in his Greke Apoca­lypse so often vseth for maruell (forsooth) the Hebrue words A­men, (which in other Scriptures also, yea and in your owne prayers is commonly vsed) and Alleluia, of which two S. Augu­stine saith (that I may note somewhat here against your Ser­uice, where you note nothing agaynst ours) not onely that in the Latine translations of the Bible they be reteined Prop­ter sanctiorem authoritatem, for more holy authoritie, Au. de doc. Chri. li. 2. c. 11. & inter. Epist. 174. al­though it was possible to interprete them, but also that all Na­tions doe sing them in the Hebrewe worde, quod nec Latino nec Barbaro licet in suam linguam transferre, Not being lawfull nei­ther for the Latine, nor for the Barbarian to translate them into his owne language.’

Of the Marcionistes you learned to giue women leaue to Baptise. You doe therein your selues by order of your booke, Epip. Haer. 42. as muche as we doe. Marcion is noted for confounding all order, as consecrating the mysteries in presence of Catechume­ni: so likewise allowing women to Baptize solemnely, as though they might haue that office as well as Priestes. We say onely, that for necessitie Christ alloweth any person to Baptize: Ruff. hist. li. 1. ca. 14. in so muche that the Primitiue Church also hath allowed the baptisme which a boye hath giuen to his playfellowes. Which you woulde neuer carpe, but that like a Pelagian Puritane, (here cap. 6. pag. 65.) you denie the necessitie of Baptisme, Aug. Haer. 88. Pelagia. saying that children, etiam si non baptizentur, although they be not baptized, may come to life euerlasting, and to the king­dome of God.

[Page 356] Pu. 13.405 Ar. 44.So playnly you are proued to be Pelagians. But yet we in our consciences forsooth must néedes be Pelagians for holding Free wil, and merites of works as they did, and not Predestination and grace as Augustine did. How they did holde it, eyther you knew not, or it was not for your hipocrisie to report it. Sure it is, that Hier. pro. con. Pelag. Au. de fide con. Mani. ca. 9 10. Chry. hom. 45. in Io. 6. Manichaeorum est, liberum auserre arbitrium, It is the Heresie of the Manichies to denie Free-will. Sure it is againe, that S. Augustine denying the Pelagians merites, that is, such as procéede of man him selfe, and go before grace: yet holdeth the Catholike merites, that is, such as procéede of grace. Aug. epi. 46. ‘The Pe­lagian Heretikes do say ( quoth he) the grace of God to be giuen according to our owne merites. quod omnino falsissimum est, Which is vtterly moste false, not that there is no merite, either good of the godly, or euill of the vngodly: but the grace of god doth conuert a man, that of a wicked one he may be made a iust one, and so may beginne to haue good merites, which God shall crowne when the world shall be iudged.’ This is the doctrine of the Catholikes, and is most euident to be séene in the Councell of Trent. Con. Trid. Ses. 6. But you denying all good merits, do like Hipocrites con­ceale from the people that distinction of merites before grace and merites after grace, making as though all which hold merites, so much as after grace, be Pelagians. But that we hold also merits before grace, as they did, you will proue by the distinction De cō ­gruo & condigno: For God is as much bound to congruity as to dignitie or worthines: and as he can do nothing against worthi­nes, no more can he do any thing against congruitie, which is a kind of equitie. We also our selues do hold, that a man of him selfe without Gods speciall helpe, can not merite so much as de congruo, the grace of God (though we haue no resolute warrant to call the contrarie Pelagianisme or Heresie) and that with bet­ter argumēts then this of yours, or els we might hold our peace, which you can not. For you imagine that if God do not that which is congruous, he doth against congruitie. Not so, good syr, for it is congruous to his mercy to saue the simple, that followe you only of ignorance, and otherwise do liue in good works, espe­cially his welbeloued seruantes also praying for them. Yet to damne such also because they be out of the Church, is congruous to his iustice. Yea for God to saue al the world, is cōdigne to the [Page 357] merites of Christ: yet he damneth innumerable, because that it is condigne to their owne merites.