Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

The first part concerning the errors that he laid (ap. 3. par. 2.) both to the fathers, and to us, and first of the cross and images.

First, where I charge them, that the estimation of the sign or figure of the cross was taken of the Valentinians, that the reader may wonder at my audacity, he saith, Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speak not a word of the figure, nor sign, nor use of the cross, but tell that those heretics invented 30. gods called Aeones, and in them two or 3. Christ's, and one of the Christ's, they called Crux, &c. what say you Bristow, speak they not a word, either of the figure, sign, or use of the cross? I could refer you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus, where he telleth that they call the Zodiak (whose moving is overthwart the first moving of heaven) an image of the cross. And when they both tell you, that the cross among the Valentinians, had a double use of confirmation and separation, speak they not a word of the use of the cross? No (say you) they invented 30 gods called Aeones, and among them diverse Christ's, whereof the cross was one. It is a shame to lie on the devil. The Valentinians did not call their Aeones gods, but emissions of the first great invisible & infinite Acone. Neither was the cross, any of those 30. Aeones, ages, or worlds. For they are all thirty named in Irenaeus, before he cometh to the cross: videlicet 8. of the first emission, ten of the seconde; and twelve of the third. Neither did they call the cross Christ, but the virtue of Christ, confirmatiue & separatiue, such as healed y ^e woman of the bloody issue. Unto which they gave diverse names, calling it in a manner as you papists do, the redeemer, the savior, the sanctifier, the apoynter of the bounds, the bringer unto further matters, the most perfect ende or termination, &c. But all this while, you will say there is no mention of the figure of the cross, but of a feigned mystery or imagination. Then you must understand, that of these imagined mysteries, they affirmed there were sensible and material things in the world, made to be similitudes and images: Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the cross y ^t Christ suffered upon, and all other crosses made to the similitude of it, of which S. Paul by their fantasie should say, God forbid that I should rejoice but in the cross of Christ, &c. whose figures that they used in their consecration and baptizing, it may appear in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the cross be not named, yet their terms of redemption, confirmation & division which they used, in pouring on of water, anointing them, do infinyate, that they used some signs of the cross to whom they gave those titles, as before is shown. Finally when it is certain by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those similitudes and images in material things, were made unto the honor of their invisible and spiritual phantasies, there is no doubt but they had in great price the material image or sign of the cross, for reverence of that high mystery whereof they dreamed the same to be an image or similitude.

Concerning the images of Jesus, which the Carpocratians and other like heretics made, and worshipped, Bristow saith, it toucheth not the papists, because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers, like as the Samaritans joined the worshipping of false God's, with the worshipping of our Lord. If I should object unto you, the worshipping of the images of saint Sunday, saint Hardhuffe, saint Vncomber, yea saint Christopher, and saint George on horseback, which all were mere Idols after your own diffinition of Idols, I wote not howe you could quite yourself, from the case of the Samaritans. But Irenaeus and Epiphanius charge the heretics, not only for joining the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of Jesus, but also for feigning the Image of Jesus, and worshipping it. Irenaeus against Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutely, Viuntur autem & imaginibus & incātationibus, & invocationibus &c. They use images, and inchauntmentes, & inuocations and all the rest of superstitions. Here he placeth the use of images with inchauntementes, invocation of spirits, and other superstitions of magike, and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith,

If it had not been a fault to have had these counterfete images, Irenaeus would not have joined it among other heretical practices of the Carpocratians. The like saith Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes, Who seeth not by this context, that Epiphanius accounted it heretical, to have such images in any use of religion, although they had not made any other images of philosophers besides? Also against the Collyridians, which with certain cakes offering as the Papists do candles, worshipped the image of the virgin Marie: he asketh, what this desire of making images can be, else, but a devilish enterprise? yet the Collyridians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the virgin Marie. Neither doeth he simply charge them that they worshipped her, as a God, but And what think you, would he have judged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women, to the images of the virgin Marie, which could not abide to see a veil in which was painted the image of Christ, or some saint, hanging in a Church of Christians, but rent it in pieces, at Anablatha? Epiph. Epist. ad John, Hieron. But for the defense of Images: Bristow referreth the reader to Sanders book of Images: and I likewise to my confutation of the same. In the mean time, it is a small matter, that Bristow urgeth my confession, that crossing at every step, (which is, saith he, a making and great religion of Images) is referred by Tertullian unto tradition of the Apostles, seeing that is shown to have a later and corrupter beginning, and other fables beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolic tradition.

2 Of invocation of saints, and worshipping of their relics.

You remember since the 3. chapter (saith Bristow) by your own report that the true Church counted Vigilantius an heretic for denying the invocation of Saints, and the worshipping of their relics. I answer, y ^t I remember no such matter, neither do I find anywhere, that Vigilantius was publicly condemned for an heretic, in his time, but only in the private judgment of Jerome, although Bernardus long after account him little better. But of worshipping the relics of Saints, and of their images, the case (say you) is all one: then by Jerome's judgment, neither of both is to be worshipped.

By which saying, and other to the same effect, it is manifest, that although Jerome defended some honoring, or moderate reverence of relics, yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them, and much more of their images. Where I say, the superstition of relics is received of the Ossenes: Bristow saith it pertaineth not to them, because the Ossenes worshipped them for God's, whose relics they had in such, estimation. But that is false: for they held Marthys and Marthana for Saints, proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they never worshipped, but as a great Prophet and teacher, although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur, they were worshipped as God's: meaning that worship which is proper unto God only, was given to them, as it is of Papists unto saints, whom they worship as God, giving that worship unto them, which is proper only unto God, as faith & invocation. But Bristow would have the snottie cloths of Thomas Becket, that were worshipped after his death, to be all one with the napkins and partletts, that were carried frō the body of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out unclean spirits, when he lived: which napkins and partletts, yet he cannot prove either, that they were ever worshipped, or that they were reserved for relics, after the work of miracles was wrought by them. As for the argument that Chrysostom taketh, against the Pagans, of the relics of Babylas the Martyr, which he would have me to apply to my disease, was to the confusion of Idolatry and sorcery, not to the setting up or maintaining thereof. And what worship I pray you, was given to the relics of Babylas? If God shown miracles by the presence of his body in Daphne, as by the bones of Elisha, yet it followeth not, that his body or ashes, were worshipped more then the bones of Elisha were.

Concerning invocation of Angels, which they have common with the Caianes, Bristow showeth, that the Caianes had other greater heresies, which the papists hold not, as though those greater errors could excuse this lesser.

The superstition of Angels, that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians, and Collossians to beware of, he saith, they be clear of it, because in all their prayers, they conclude per Christum &c. Through Christ our Lord: as though they that taught the superstition of Angels, did clean exclude Christ, or that it was to be doubted, lest the Ephesians and Collosians, would forsake Christ, and cleave to Angels, but rather lest with the religion of Christ, as the chief, they would also admit the superstition of the Angels, whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati, bowed down in y ^e worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith, which therefore held not the head, because they worshipped not him alone, but joined Angels in part of his glory. That Angels are ministering spirits, it proveth not, that therefore they must be prayed unto, but the contrary, for invocation is due only to him on whom we believe, which is God only. So much the more blasphemous is Bristow, that chargeth Saint John, Apoc. 1. to have prayed to the Angels, where he saith, Grace and peace be to you from him, that is, and was, and is to come: and from the 7. spirits, that are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all ancient writers is, that the seven spirits are taken for the holy Ghost, which is seven fold in his graces, according to the prophecy of Isaiah 11. The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, &c. And it is also evident, that S. John speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shown to him in the vision, according to the dispensation of his manifold gifts in the figure of the seven lamps which are the 7. spirits of God according to the number of seven Churches of Asia, to whom he sendeth the copy of his revelation, for the instruction of all Churches in the world. Apoc. 4. And albeit we should expound these seven spirits for seven Angels, as some late writers do, yet it followeth not, that S. John should pray unto them, in those words, but rather to God for their ministry to the preservation of the Churches: No more then if he should wish grace unto them from heaven, it followeth that he prayeth unto heaven. That phrase is often in the Psalms, wherein salvation or help is prayed to be sent from Zion, from the holy Hill, from the Temple, from heaven: and yet no man was so mad to say, that prayers was made to Zion, to the Hill, to the Temple, to heaven. And yet it is more monstrous, that he chargeth me to forget, that in the same book of the Apocalypse, God doeth promise to make the obstinate Jews to come, and to adore before the feet of one Angel. And they shall know that I have loved thee &c. I speak unto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this book of Bristowes and allowed it. Wast thou awake when thou didest p • ruse this argument, and allowed it? Tell me by thy credit, is this the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia, of whom this is written to be understood, for one of those heavenly spirits concerning whose worship and invocation we now speak in this controversy? Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heaven? is any of those Angels neither hot nor cold in the service of God? hath any of them a name that he liveth and is dead? hath any of them left his first love? doth any of them suffer the woman Jezebel to preach &c? Out upon thine impudence, if thou affirm all this, and fie upon thy negligence, if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument, if thou be ashamed to affirm all the rest. As for thee Bristow, it shall be sufficient to hear thy Master reproved for thy fault at this time, to make the blush if any spark of honest shame be left in thy breast, that darest set abroad such an intolerable corruption of y ^e holy scripture, against all wit and reason that ever was heard of.

3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate, and from marriage.

Bristow would have the question of prescript fasting days and abstinence from flesh to be all one, as they are accounted among the Papists. But there is great difference. For Arius which denied fasting days appointed by the church to be observed, did nevertheless as Augustine showeth out of Philaster, teach abstinence from flesh. Wherefore Bristow falsely chargeth me to confess, that the Papists have the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting days, common with the ancient fathers of the primitive church. For on their prescript fasting days (except for necessity) they did eat neither fish nor flesh, nor anything until the evening. As for the abstinence from meats, against which Jovinian did teach, was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selves, not only from flesh, but also from fish and wine also, as appeareth by Hieronyme,

Likewise, in diverse places, he speaketh of the abstinence from wine. Furthermore, he chargeth me to bring no proof of that I say, the fathers took prescript times of fasting and immeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergy, from the Tatianistes, Manichees; & Montanistes. If I brought no proof in that place, it was because I presupposed that Allen knew, what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius, lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed laws of fasting. And that the Manichees in their electes, and the Tatianistes in their perfectes, allowed not marriage, out of Epiphanius & Augustine. But where I charge the Papists which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh, Bristow saith, I take Richard for Robert, because the Aerians abstained from flesh, as the Manichees, Tatianistes, & Montanistes, as pertaining to the ill god, according to the heresy of the Valentinians. Admit it were so, yet how cā either Richard or Robert dischardg them selves of the doctrine of devils and spirit of error, whose fruit is forbidding of marrying & eating of meats, 1. Tim. 4. which is heretical and abhominable, for what cause of religion so ever it be? And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisy, it is more probable that he speaketh against y ^e Papists, than against those open blasphemers. But howe proveth Bristow, that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites? Forsooth, because Augustine saith:

The similitude (which Bristow by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his words) would have to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites, is only in the abstinence from marriage and meats, and possessions, not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained. For seeing Arius was an Arian, he could not hold the plurality of God's. For the Arians so held the unity of the godhead, that they denied the Trinity of the persons in equal substance. And although he were the scholar of Eustachius, yet it followeth not y ^t he held all pointes as his master did. Augustine chargeth him to have added these matters of his own. Beside that, diverse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists, concerning the marriage of priests, and the abstinence from meats, howsoever the papists will not seem to be so boisterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdom of heaven to them that marry, and hope to them that eat flesh: yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write, that they which be married be in the flesh, and cannot please God: Ep. ad Him. Tarrat. And what a dangerous matter the Papists count it, to eat flesh in times by them prohibited, all the world doth know.

4 Of Ceremonies, and Liturgies.

The church is S. Augustine's times approved unprofitable and hurtful usages, because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth, that they might be abrogated so soon as occasion served. Bristow quarreling, that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission: answereth that Augustine in the same epistle saith,

And I reply notwithstanding, y ^t they may be unprofitable and hurtful usages. For so the same Augustine writeth in the same Epistle. But Bristow proceedeth and urgeth another saying of Augustine, that if the whole church use anything, it is a point of most insolent madness to call in question, whether that should be so used. I answer, we speak of approving of usages, not of anything that is generally used. The church is S. Augustine's time, approved diverse unprofitable usages by secrete consent, without open abrogation, which yet were diverse in diverse places.

Where I prove they were unprofitable by this reason, that many of them are abrogated, he answereth, that is no good argument, for there might be good cause to abrogate them, although they came of the tradition of the Apostles: as y ^e decree of not eating blood nor strangled, Act. 15. and the custom of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to pray and prophesy bareheaded. To the former decree I reply, that it was temporal, and not meant by the makers to be eternal, but to bear with the infirmity of the Jews for a time. To the other custom of praying or preaching bareheaded, whatsoever the pompous doctors of the popish church observe, I say it is perpetually to be observed for the distinction of the man and woman in covering and uncovering of the head, and the observing of natural comliness in both, although for necessity of health a nightcap, kerchief or such like covering, according to the custom of the country, be not absolutely prohibited. As for y ^e forbidding of solemn fasts and genuflections on sundayes, which Bristow saith was ordained by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection, and more straitly observed of the church against the Manichees, which might be abrogated, now that article is received and the heresy extinct is but a dream of his own head without proof, & so 〈…〉 et it pass, although I know not what he meaneth to say, that forbidding of solemn kneeling is still observed: for the papists kneel as solemnly on sundayes as on other days. As for the liberty the church hath in altering of ceremonies, is never denied of me: but fondly alleged of him, which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be observed, as commandments of the scripture, referring every blind ceremony, whereof he knoweth none author, to tradition of the Apostles.

Now concerning the Liturgies, he saith, Proclus answereth why Basil & Chrysostom changed the ancient Liturgies that were before them: he saith, forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgy of S. James, which was too long for the people's cold devotion. But his reason will soon prove all the three Liturgies that now are called by the names of S. James, Basil, and Chrysostom, to be counterfeits, for there is small difference in the length of them, and in a manner none at all. As for the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, doth in deed name the Liturgies of S. James, Basil, & Chrysostom, but that proveth not these which we have at this day, to be the same, seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary, as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth under the name of James and of Alexius the Emperor, & Nicholas the bishop, in Chrysostom, which were not borne many hundredth years after his death. But that prayers for the dead, were used in y ^e ancient Liturgies, that were before Chrysostom's time, Bristow saith he hath proved by plain demonstration, Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostom cited by me,

This saying proveth a remembrance, but not a prayer, nevertheless of this remembrance used in the elder times, they gathered prayers to be profitable. But more clearly, that it was a remembrance without prayers, it appeareth by Epiphanius, which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners, and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our savior Christ, cont. Aer. ser. 75.

5 Of sacrifice: and for the dead.

The name of sacrifice, which the fathers used commonly for the celebration of the Lord's supper, they took of the Gentiles, you might add and of the Jews also, for that somewhere I do affirm. But howe prove you, they had it of the scriptures? Because Christ said not this is I, that was borne of the virgin, but this is my body, this is my blood. The Apostle saith not of him that eateth unworthily, that he is guilty of Christ, but he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Why Bristow, doest thou dream? we speak of the name of sacrifice, whether it be used in scripture for the celebration of the Lord's supper. But if I knew (saith he) what is the sacrifice of a live thing, I should see that Christ is here as properly sacrificed in a mystical manner, as he was properly sacrificed on the cross in an open manner. Syr I know what S. Paul meaneth, when he exhorteth us to offer up our bodies a living sacrifice, Rom 12. & yet I am never the near to understand, your mystical sacrifice of a very body, under the mystery of shape and color of bread.

Also as blind as you make me, I see the Altar, Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Jews to eat, so long as they remain in Judaism, but that sacrifice is the death of Christ, whereof none that continue in observation of the Levitical Law can be partakers. As for the table of the Lord, and the table of devils, in one form of speech, 1. Cor. 10. proveth no sacrifice of the Lord's table, opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentiles, but the feast of the Lord's table, contrary to the feast of the idol offerings, whereof the controversy was, and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentiles. For if he had meant of the sacrifices of both, he would have na 〈…〉 ed the altar of the Lord and the altar of devils. For 〈◊〉 alter is proper for a sacrifice, as a table for a feast or • past. So that yet I stand to mine old assertion, I can • ot find one word or one syllable in the scripture, of • ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper, But • ontrariwise I find in the scripture, that he offered on • y one sacrifice propitiatory, and that but once upon the • rosse: Heb. 9. & 10.

Purgatory.

Where I show out of Tertullian de anima, cap. de recep • u, that the opinion of Purgatory after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did, seeing all philosophers that granted the immortality of the soul, as Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, assigned three places for the souls departed, Heaven, hell, and a third place of purifying. This argument (saith Bristow) proveth as well, that heaven, hell, & • he immortality of the soul, had their original of the • hilosophers. He is a perilous Logician that can so cō • ude. For heaven, hell, and the immortality of the soul, • re found in the scriptures, which are before all philosophers, but of the third place of purifying, we may say as Augustine doth, contra Pelag. hypognost. lib. 5. Tertium pe • itus ignoramus. The third place we know not at all, neither do we find it in the holy scriptures. But if I would report the truth (Bristow saith) there is no word of any third place of purifying, but that those philosophers, made only two sorts of receptacles. But if I find three and the third a place of purifying, what shall we think of Bristowes truth? First he granteth supernas mansiones, the high mansions for the souls of the Philosophers and wise men only: secondly Inferos, hell, or the low places, whereof Tertullian saith

3. What say you Bristow, all the souls except Philosophers souls? Could you not see between them, imprudentes animas, the foolish souls, remaining (according to the Stoics) about the earth, which should be instructed of the wise souls. What was this, but a third place, and a place of purifying? But if you would have your purgatory more plainly described, you may resort to Virgil, Aeneid. 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras, rehearseth howe the souls of good men are purged: (saith he) yet is not all evil, nor all the infections of the body departed frō them, and it is necessary that such things as have been long gathered together, should by marvelous means be done away. Therefore they are exercised with pains, and suffer the punishment of their ancient evils: some souls, are hanged up against the void winds, to some their sin remaining, is washed away under great raging waters, or burned up with fire. Everyone of us suffer our punishments, and then being but few we are sent into the joyful Elysian fields &c.

Now concerning the three kinds of Purgatory, which I said that Carpocrates the heretic invented, & proved by the payment of the uttermost farthing, as the papists do theirs: Bristow saith, by this argument, I will win much honesty, because the purgatory that Carpocrates invented, was a wallowing in all sinful operation &c. What is that to mine honesty? I said he invented a kind of purgatory, and Bristow saith it was an absurd kind of purgatory. I said he proved his purgatory as the papists do theirs, but to that Bristow answereth never a word. But this is small honesty, for Bristow, that such things as are joined together by me, to show by what degrees popish purgatory came to perfection, they are severed by him, as though I meant to charge the Papists by such arguments, to confute their purgatory.

Purgatory fire.

I said that purgatory fire was taken of the Originists. For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all souls, then the papists do 〈…〉 r some souls: and the name of purgatory fire, began 〈…〉 bout Augustine's time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origen's error, which was of purging all souls, 〈…〉 ith the erronius practice of praying for the dead, out • f which, they gathered the purging of some souls. That I say of Origen, although Bristow confess it to 〈…〉 e true in effect, yet he saith I speak it without proof. My proof is in

More of his ge • eral purgation of all men, and not y ^e damned only, you • ay read in yet saith Bristow, that of the purgation of such as die in gods favor, there is no word, which although he speak of Augustine whose words he citeth Ad quod vult. Hae. 43. yet he saith untruly, for thus he writeth in the same place: I suppose he y ^t speaketh of the purgation of every reasonable creature, speaketh of the purgation of such as die in God's favor also, wherefore it is manifest, that Origen erred not only about hell & heaven, and the purgation of the damned, but also about the purgation of such as die in God's favor. Therefore Bristow need not gather mine argument, as he doth in scorn. There is no such Purgatory as Origen & Carpocrates would have, therefore there is no purgatory at all. But what should Carpocrates come in this title? but for a sorry sophism, whē we speak of Origen only. Wherefore if you will give me leave to frame mine argument (although I meant not an argument out of Origen's purging fire only) it should be thus: There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that die in God's favor: such as Origen's fire, is the fire that the papists would have: therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists would have.

Releeuing of the dead by prayer.

If the dead be not relieved, we say (quod Bristow as S. Paul saith) they must endure a fiery and therefore a most painful purgation. And for this saying, he quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristow, where saith S. Paul the dead must endure a fiery purgation, or where maketh he any exception of their relieving? He saith the fire shall try every man's work. Is every man only some kind of dead men? or is every man's work the man him self? or is the trial of every man's work of what sort it is, a purgation either of the man or of the work? Art thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that, whereof he saith nothing at all? even by the judgment of S. Augustine. But that Arius was not the first that denied prayers for the dead to be profitable, I shown by that of the most ancient writers. The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead w ^t inuocations, and to redeem them with oil, balm and water, and inuocations said over their heads, as Augustine and Epiphanius show out of Irenaeus. Now cometh Bristow, and in many needless words, rehearseth other partes of their heresy, with their manner of seasoning or receiving those that believe in them, by a counterfeit marriage and baptism, and by anointing with balm, &c. concluding that this practice of theirs, maketh as much against true baptism & solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead, anealing, or anointing, &c. Likewise might they conclude, that all their ceremonies are as good as baptism and marriage. But whatsoever we read of the practice of heretics, we must learn to distinguish that which is their own invention, from that which is the ordinance of God. And how shall we know God's ordinance from heretics invention, but by the holy scriptures? Separating therefore baptism and marrying, which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures, from the rest that have no ground in the same, prayers for the dead which they used with such like matters, were the invention of heretics. Howbeit (saith Bristow) of prayer for the dead in all this was never a word. No was? Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much & could not see, that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples alive, he telleth how they redeem them when they are dead:

Do you not hear the same prayers said by the heretics for the dead, which they uttered before for the living?

But if the Heracleonites should fail me, I affirm that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of y ^e Papists, because Tertullian a Montanist uttereth all those pointes in such books as he made being a Montanist, and especially in his book de anima. That Terrullian uttereth the opinion of the Papists in all pointes, Bristow will not deny: But he asketh, whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his book de anima, and in so many other books as he wrote being a Montanist? No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretic held whatsoever he wrote in those books. Howe then shall we discern that which is proper to Montanus, from that which he hath common with the catholic church? I delivered a rule even now, concerning the practice of the Heracleonites. Prayer for the dead and Purgatory are not found in the holy Scriptures, but they are found in a disciple of Montanus, therefore they stink of Montanisme. Add hereunto that in so many books as Tertullian did write being a catholic, there is no mention of prayer for the dead, or suffering after this life of the faithful. Last of all, Tertullian him self telleth you plainly, that Paracletus, the comforter (by which he meant the spirit of Montanus) had revealed very often, that every small offense must be punished after this life, in that the soul of any except martyrs, shall not go immediately into Paradise, but tarie in prison until it have paid the uttermost farthing. What needed he to cite the authority of his Paracletus, if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly received in the catholic Church? Which saying, since I have set down in Tertullian's words in the page of Purg. 417. by you quoted, you needed not to have made a question, whether this opiniō were Montanisme or no. But when you can say nothing against this assertion yourself, you would make me vncertein of it, and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine, because in one place, before I come to the found proof of it, I say it is a probable conjecture. And doeth it follow therefore, that I doubt of it, because I offer a probable conjecture to other men's understanding, before by order of the discourse, I am brought to the manifest probation of it? The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulness, show your ordinary manner of collections. And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes added prayers for the spirits of them that were dead, &c. Purg. 417. What vncerteintie is of that matter, whereof it is not otherwise to be thought? Again: Finally, it appeareth, that the faithful in Tertullian's time allowed no prayers for the dead. Pur. 419. Call you that doubtful which appeareth by plain demonstration before, pag. 417?

But for all your fine frumpe in the margent (all in Tertullian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not mention) it is a probable conjecture, that prayer for y ^e dead, whereof Tertullian speaketh, was used only in the conventicles of Montanistes, because Cyprian which long after lived in Carthage, in all his works, maketh no mention of prayers for the dead. But I ween Cyprian maketh express mention of prayers for the dead, by my confession, as Bristow would have men think, because I say, of one place alleged by Allen, that it hath some couler for Purgatory, which by flowe of arguments I easily wash of, that I need not stick in the lyme, as Bristow saith I do: but howe I am fastened therein, he saith never a word.

Oblations for the dead.

I said that oblations for the dead, although at the first they were but of thanksgiving, were taken of the Gentiles, as appeareth by Tertulliā, who counteth them of one original or beginning with oblations for the birth days, falsely fathering them upon tradition of y ^e Apostles, as he doth other vanities in the same place, whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles, as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus, a Papist, affirming, that by the Canons of the Nicene council and other councils which he had seen in librarijs, they were abrogated and taken away. Bristow saith, he is but a poor antiquarie, which knoweth not, that Natalitia in old time, were as they now are the days of Martyrs sufferings: And yet he can name never an old writer justly, that calleth them natalitia. He nameth in deed Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum: the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs. What print he followeth I know not, but my book hath natalibus and not natalitijs: between which words there is some difference. As for Martyrologies whether he sendeth us, I know none of such antiquity, that they may be judges in this case.

Tully is a better witness what natalitia, being a substantive, in old time did signify, namely, the feasts that were kept for the joy of men's birthdaye

Wherefore Pamelius, as great an antiquarie as you make him, unjustly reproveth Rhenanus, for understanding natalitia in Tertullian, to be feasts of the birthdayes used after the example of the Gentiles. The places you cite out of Cyprian, speak neither of natales nor natalitia, but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemoration or remembrance of y ^e Martyrs sufferings, which could be none other but sacrifices of thanksgiving, according to your own doctrine. Wherefore you show nothing to the contrary, but that Tertullian using the word natalitia, understandeth it for feasts of the birthdaye, and not of the death of Martyrs. And beside the authority of Rhenanus and Tully, for the signification of the word natalitia, I oppose against you these reasons. First, that he addeth not the name of Martyrs, as all they that use natalitia or natales for the day of their departure, but saith generally, pro natalitijs. Secondly, that he spake immediately before of oblations pro defunctis, for the dead, which you understand for all faithful departed out of the world: therefore pro natalitijs, signifieth the oblation for the birth of all Christians come into the world. Thirdly, seeing he had before named oblations for the dead, it were absurd to understand pro natalitijs for the dead also, without anymore explication. Fourthly, if natalitia should signify the feasts of the death of Martyrs (as you say,) it will follow also, which I do urge of the place, that oblations pro defunctis for the dead, were but oblations of thanksgiving as those for the death of Martyrs, which are contained in one word or phrase. As for that you add out of Origen, in Job. lib 3. We celebrate not the day of birth, &c. But the day of death, showeth the custom of the Greek Church, and not of the Latin, and their celebrating of their day of birth with joy and thanksgiving, as the day of the beginning of felicity, and ende of all sorrows unto the dead, clean overthroweth your opinion of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, as in his time, not yet entered into the Greek Church. Beside that, he speaketh of the death of all men, and not of Martyrs only, as you violently would wrest him.

Beeres to carry home the corpses.

He maketh a foolish quarrel upon my saying, that George of Alexandria invented beeres for lucres sake, as the Papists their bearing clothes, and other toys, for funeral pomp. And first he saith, that George did not invent beeres. For Epiphanius saith, he devised to make the number of them certain, and without those that he ordained, no corps to be buried, and all for lucres sake. Ep. H. 76. I never thought, that they carried dead men on their necks like beasts to the grave before Georges days, and therefore they had some kind of comely carriage for them. But I said truly, that George invented peculiar beeres, for lucres sake, as the Papists use their bearing clothes and like stuff. Secondly he saith, I commend such ceremonies as are convenient for laying up of the corps. I do so: But superstitious beereclothes, and other ceremonies of popery, so dearly paid for, are neither needful nor convenient.

Again he asketh, whether I think it much, that the Church should reap their carnalia, to whom she soweth spiritualia? No verily: but I could never learn out of the scriptures, that bearing clothes, crosses, candles, torches, &c. were such spiritualia, as the ministers of the Church ought to sow. Last of all, where he asketh, whether I would provide a beer and bearing clothes against I be buried, rather then to pay my duties to my parish Church, he declareth, that he doth willfully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clothes, as though I denied anything that is comelye, when I speak against superstition and couetuousnesse.

The seconde parte concerning the errors that he laid (cap. 4.) to the fathers and not to us. 1. Touching the heresies that were in their times.

He demandeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies, that were in the Apostles times, and the same Church in three Arian Emperors times, with the heresy of Arius? I answer that I never charged either the Apostles, or the faithful members of the Church, or the true Church it self, with any heresies that were in their times. But answering the demand Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath always stood still and steadfast, while all congregations of heretics have decayed: I say, The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast and inseparable from Christ her head, when all heretics have been and shall be consounded, although she have not always flourished in worldly peace. For until the time of Constantine the great, the Church had small rest: And soon after under the Emperors Constantius, Constano, and Valens, it was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius.

Where Bristow falsifieth my words, reporting that I say, The true Church was infected &c. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that profess Christianity, as when I say, the Church was persecuted by the heathen Emperors, I mean all that would profess Christianity, among which were many heretics that suffered persecution also. Lykewise when I say, the Church was infected, I mean the visible Church, in which are always many hypocrites, according to the parable of the net and of the tares, &c. yea I doubt not but many of GOD'S elect, were infected with that heresy in those times, which afterward repented and returned to the knowledge of the truth: wherefor my meaning was nothing less, then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxie and true profession with the heresy of Arius, or any other which it did openly detest and abhor.

An other quarrel he hath against me, where I said, Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after y ^e Apostles times. In which place, after I had shown what corruption of doctrine had been received of y ^t greatest lights and pillars of the Church, from which it was not like, that most of y ^e inferior members could be free: I conclude according to y ^e demand (which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelihood, whē the true church did decaie?) that it decayed immediately after y ^e Apostles times, meaning as y ^e demand serveth also, to understand the word of decaying, when it began to decay, & not as Bristow cavilleth, whē it was utterly decayed & came to nothing, for such decaying I utterly deny, y ^t ever it was, or ever shall be. If we see some principal posts of an house, begin to putrefy, may we not say, this building doth decay? Or being asked when it decayed, after it is come to a more ruinous state, and yet standeth, may we not answer, it decayed first, when such a beam or post began to put rifie? I doubt not but every man of reasonable understanding, will acknowledge how foolish these cavils are, which are taken of ambiguity of words, and misconstruing of phrases clean contrary to my meaning, expressed in plain evident terms, and hundredth times at least, in these my books, namely that the Church, although it be persecuted by tyrants, assaulted by heretics, undermined by hypocrites, enuyed and maligned by the devil himself, yet the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, to root it out of the world, or to hinder the salvation of any one true member thereof.

Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, & S. Justinus.

If these doctors have erred (saith Bristow) in anything, yet this thing is notable, that not so much as in any one of their errors, they are of your side. A notable matter in deed, that we hold not so much as any one error, which they did hold. But you will not say y ^e contrary, for shame, but that we hold many truths which they held. We resist (you say) their full & whole consent. That is utterly false, you have not their full & whole consent, for any point of popery: prayer for the dead is y ^e oldest error you have, except the superstition of Angels and y ^e pharisaical doctrine of justification. Shew me the full & whole consent of all the fathers for it, whose writings are extant, show me Justinus, Irenaeus, Origen's, Cyprianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, or any within 200. years after Christ (except Tertullian a Montanist) that in his writings maintaineth prayer for the dead.

But you will tell us, whereto you papists ascribe infallible truth: First to the canonical scriptures & tradition of the Apostles, to y ^e decrees of Peter & his chair, to the whole church, to y ^e consent of fathers & councils, both general and provincial, confirmed by Peters successor. We know this well enough, but I do rehearse it in your own terms, y ^t it may appear you are not ashamed to match diverse authorities equal in truth infallible, with the holy scriptures inspired of God, y ^t alone are able to instruct a man to salvation, and prepare him to every good work. For these authorities, you urge not only where they agree with the scriptures, but also where you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be imperfect, as that they have omitted anything needful to salvation, or the advancement of God's glory in true religion.

The errors of y ^e fathers, we do not reveal to their dishonor, but to y ^e honor of God. Let God only be true & every man a liar, yea Peter & Peters successor a thousand times. Whereas you take upon you, to mitigate y ^e errors of the fathers, named in the title, you labor in 〈…〉 e: we know they erred not of malice, but being de 〈…〉 ued with similitude of truth. But where you say, it 〈…〉 s no great matter for Irenaeus, Papius, and other to 〈…〉 ue erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts, until the Church had condemned peradventure y ^t opinion in the heretics called Mellenaries: you show what certainty of truth you have out of y ^e scriptures, & yet you make it but a peradventure, that the Church hath condemned that error. Last of all, where you say in excuse of y ^e error of Justinus, concerning angels, that express mention is made Gen. 6. of the sin of y ^e Angels, calling the translation of the septuaginta authentical, which translateth the Angels of God instead of the sons of God, you give great cause of suspicion that you are not clear of that error yourself.

3 Touching second marriages, and S. Jerome.

Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the 〈…〉 me of Justinus, was in some error about second marri • ges and divorcement: Bristow is angry, that I have no more to say: but it seemeth as though he would have me • harge the man or the time with more thā I can manifestly prove. But seeing I quote no place for it, he dare say I have it not in the works of Justinus himself, and counsels me not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries. As for the Centuries I dare say, I never red five leaves of them together, or in partes. But I dare show to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most ancient writers, my book of notes writ̄ with mine own hand, more then 15. years past.

The place of Justinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium, &c. where he hath these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , As they that by man's law enter into seconde marriages, are sinners by our masters judgment. I know the words are otherwise interpreted by some, and the sin not referred to seconde marriages, but to wanton beholding of women: And therefore I do not precisely charge Justinus. And yet again I say it seemeth, that the Church in his time was in some error, because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher, that lived in a manner in the same time, doth expressly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium, a fair kind of adultery.

And this seemeth to be the common error of his time, because he writeth this in that Apology, which he made in defense of all Christians, which it is not like he would present to the Emperor, in the name of them all, except he had written that, which was the common received opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time.

Concerning Hieronyme, Bristow is angry also that I say he was almost fallen into Tertullian's error, when it is manifest he was fain to purge himself, not only against malicious enuiers, but also towards Godly Bishops, and Christians. Apol. ad Pammachium.

Whereas I lay unto Jerome, two other perilous Assertions, whereof the one tendeth to destroy the humanity of Christ, the other to give divinity to the martyrs, where he saith,

Bristow answereth, that the saints are not every • here in personal presence. How then? But of such power 〈…〉 ey be, that they hear their suitors in all places at once, and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heal & help whom they will. Even 〈…〉 s the lamb that is Christ according to his humanity he 〈…〉 eth his suitors in all places, and in personal presence assi 〈…〉 ed Saint Stephen, and whomsoever else he will: I say according also to his humanity &c. But what say you according to his humanity, is he everywhere? that is the question, and not of his power in hearing suitors, or helping them. If you will defend the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanity, speak plainly, and join with Hieronyme if you dare. If you interpret everywhere for all power, how can you give all power to the souls of Martyrs, which they ascribe only to GOD and the Lamb? Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute unto the souls of Saints, such power, that they hear the suitors in all places at once &c: Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christ, that make the suit of every saint equal with him in infinite power of hearing, understanding and helping. For to hear understand and help all suitors at once, is a divine privilege not communicable to any creature, that is not GOD. The argument therefore of invocation of saints, which you acompte to be so strong, without horrible blasphemy, against the divine nature, can never be defended. The Saints follow the Lamb, not to be of divine nature, or equal power with him, but to be partakers of his glory, according to his grace, and the measure and capacity of nature created.

Touching praying to the Son, and to the holy Ghoste.

Being urged by the Popish Articles to show the error of the Church in any thing, I show Pag. 89. of that answer, That the Council of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a general council, which is with the Papists the Church representative, decreed, that the prayers at the altar should be directed always to the father, which is no small error, seeing that hereof it followeth, that none ought to be directed either to the son or to the holy Ghost, or to the blessed Trinity. What moved those fathers thus to decree, I know not: but certain it is, the decree is erronius and offensive. Bristow cauelleth at my collections, as unnecessary, that no prayers may be directed but to the father, whereas my words have relation to such prayers as the council speaketh off. Also that the very prayers at the altar, may not be directed to the Son or to the holy Ghost, because for orders sake, they are appointed to be directed to the father: I say, saving the authority of the council, which appointeth them to be directed to y ^e father always, they may not, otherwise I doubt not but they may. And therefore Bristow laboreth in vain, to prove out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum, & Petrum diaconum, that the prayers, although they be directed to the father, yet are made to the holy Trinity, especially because of the conclusion, which hath in it the name of the son and the holy Ghost. And whereas he sendeth me to the Canon of his Mass for proof of the same, I must put him in remembrance, that in Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, O lamb of GOD which takest away the sins of the world &c: which is also said in his Mass, both the prayers is directed to God the son, & yet no conclusion there is, naming the father and the holy Ghost. Let Bristow therefore choose, whether he will defend the error of the council of Carthage, or else acknowledge that y ^e Romish Church doth err, in directing the prayer at the altar to the Son, without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost.

5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacraments to infantes.

I charge all the Churches in S. Augustine's time & In • ocentius him self Bishoppe of Rome, with this error, 〈…〉 at they did not only minister the communion to in 〈…〉 ntes, contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, Let a man • xamine himself &c: but also, that they thought it ne 〈…〉 ssarie for them in pain of damnation, to receive the • ommunion, which error I supposed the papists them •• lues would not defend. Here first Bristow accu • eth my boldness, in that I affirm the Papists will not • efende this error: and secondly my willful ignorance, • hat I never red the council of Trent, wherein it is • eclared that they do defend it, with an admonition to his coūtry men what blind guides they have of me and such as I am &c. Concerning the boldness, I desire • ardon of the Papists, if I thought not so evil of thē • s they deserve: And touching my willful ignorance • nd blindness, I must needs use the proverb; Who • s so bold as blind Bayarde? Bristow, which so con • tantly affirmeth, that it was not possible for him to • now: Fulke never red the council of Trent, and that i • • tterly false, for as I know I have red it, so suppose 〈◊〉 have redd it before Bristow. But admit I had ne • er seen, the report of that 5. session under Pius the 4. which was held the 16. day of July 1562, are all blind guides that never saw that session? O weighty censure of a proud papist, which by a fault called of the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thinketh that to be the highest point of learning, which he hath learned latest! But what if the council of Trent do not only acknowledge it to be an error, but also do anathematise all them that hold the contrary? Then have I not slandered the Papists, but Bristow hath slandered me. The very words cited by Bristow out of the 4. Cap. show that the Papists held it for an error, that it is necessary for infantes to receive the communion: That infantes lacking the use of reason, are by no necessity bound to the sacramental receiving of the Eucharist. Also the fourth Canon of the same session, thundereth out anathema, against them, that say otherwise.

But the same council in the Chapter by Bristow cited, affirmeth, that Antiquity is not to be condemned, if it practiced that manner, sometime, in some places, and that without controversy it must be believed, that they did it not, for any necessity of salvation. And this declaration (saith Bristow) may suffice not only all Catholics, to whō it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself, but also any other reasonable man. Indeed if any reasonable man, will be satisfied with such a gross ledging of y ^e whole matter in controversy, it is a good satisfaction. The council of Trent saith so, therefore although Augustine, Pope Innocentius, & other witnesses of antiquity say the contrary, of themselves, yet we must not believe them. That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of y ^e council of Trent, it is a great argument, & such as Bristow often useth, that it is no error. Kemnitius if he had been as quick eyed as Bernard, yet saw not all things, neither was he bound to confute all errors that he saw. But for further satisfaction of all men, Bristow will open y ^e case particularly, which is this in effect: The Pelagians affirmed, that children without baptism, should have everlasting life, although not in the kingdom of God. Wherevnto the Catholics replied, they could not have eternal life, except they did eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood in the communion: but the communion they could not receive, before they were baptized, therefore without baptism, they could not have eternal life. Now Bristow putting the case, that a child were baptized, and then immediately died before he received sacramentally the Eucharist, demandeth, whether the father granting to such a child by force of baptism remission of sins, do not also allow him eternal life and the kingdom of God. And let any man (saith he) bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case & holding the contrary. I answer, seeing they used immediately after • aptisme, to communicate the infant, y ^e case that Bristow • utteth, is too rare, to happen in 500 years that any que •• ion might grow upon it. But what their opinion was, • f the necessity of the one sacrament, as much as the o • her, it is easy to prove both by their argument, which Bristow confesseth they used, & also by their own words, whatsoever the blind guides of the Tridentine council • ay in their defense. They brought in y ^e Eucharist (saith Bristow) only to prove that baptism is necessary to the everlasting life of children. Very well: but what force • n the world hath that argument of the Euchariste, for the necessity of baptism, if the Eucharist also be not necessary for children? For the Pelagians might reply, that if the Euchariste be not necessary, no more is baptism for the attaining of eternal life. But those fathers labored to prove the necessity of baptism for infants, by the necessity of the Euchariste for infantes: And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine. As cont. Iul. • ib. 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome, And there he meaneth of eating sacramētally: as his own words cited by Augustine declare, Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia: Behold Pope Innocentius of blessed memory saith: that infantes have not life, without the baptism of Christ and without participation of the body and blood of Christ. Agayne, lib. 1. Cap. 2. he speaketh against the Pelagians, which granted that baptism was necessary for infantes, to attain to the kingdom of heaven, but not for remission of sins.

Agayne,

Also Contra Julian, lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his piety, that infantes should be damned for not doing that which they could not do, he addeth,

Also de peccatorū meritis & remission lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristow but mingled with many intersections of his own, as his manner is. After Augustine hath rehearsed the text, John. 6. Except ye eat &c: he addeth

Likewise cap. 24. he saith,

These places of Augustine I have rehearsed the more at large, that the impudency of the council of Trent and of their poor patron Bristow, might appear, which would excuse the error of the ancient Church, and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times, in saying that albeit they used to minister the communion to infantes, yet they did it not for any necessity to salvation: whereas the contrary by so many places, and more then I have rehearsed, doth most manifestly appear.

As for the practice which he confesseth of giving that sacrament to infantes, he saith is not against Probet seipsum, &c. Let a man examine himself, &c. Because that infantes may examine them selves by others, (which is a monstrous kind of speech) as well as believe and repent by others. Here is one error of Augustine defended by another of his: for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men, but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD, to whom baptism is no more to be denied, then circumcision was to the infantes of the Jews. The Prophet saith, Iustus &c. The righteous man shall live by his own faith.

It is not the faith of other men that can procure life unto us. Neither is faith required of infantes, before they can hear the word of God, which is the only ordinary means by which faith cometh. But infantes (saith Bristow) be in no mortal sins, being newely baptized, and therefore they need no examination for fear least they should come unworthily. Saint Augustine confesseth that he was in mortal sin, even in his infancy: Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est, non animus infantium: The weakness of the members of infantes is innocent, not the mind of infantes. Afterwarde he bringeth examples of envy even in an infant, and at last concludeth:

Neither may you cavil, that Augustine was not baptized in his infancy, seeing he speaketh generally of the condition of all infantes, which is not changed by baptism, although sin be not imputed unto them.

Wherefore to speak after your Popish supposition of Baptism, that by the work wrought all sin committed before baptism, is abolished in baptism; what if the infant not knowing the mystery of baptism, be angry with them that have taken him out of his warm clothes and plunged him in baptism? is this no sin? But what infant can examine himself of this sin? And what can the examination of other men profit him whom the holy Ghoste will have to examine himself? As for the distinction of Votum explicitum & implicitum, he sendeth us to Allens book de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. &c.

For how can we be assured, that children have a close desire to baptism more then to the communion? Or how can it be proved, That they have any desire explicit or implicit to either of both the sacraments? If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infantes, against all reason, and without all scriptures, we may fill books with distinctions and devises innumerable. Last of all, he chargeth me, with falsification by adding, because the council of Trent saith, that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis, sometimes and in some places. But I pray thee Bristow, what have I falsified? the council of Trent, which thou affirmest that I did never read? Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes, were not so many, as Fulke doeth make them. Why, howe many do I make them? I said that the Pope of Rome and all they that took his part in S. Augustine's time, were in this error, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, was to be ministered to infantes. And have I not plainly, and now also plentifully proved it out of Saint Augustine? where is then this falsification? If I had not proved that which I said, yet there is difference betwixt falsification, and a false affirmation. And because the Tridentine council saith, it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued, it is manifest that it began to be ministered to infantes before Cyprians time, and continued five or six hundredth years after. Witness Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli. de Coron. mil. where he showeth that this manner was continued until the times of Ludouicus Pius, and Lotharius and after: citing these words out of the books of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptized. Si Episcopus &c. If the Bishop be present, it must be immediately confirmed and then communicated. If the Bishop be not present, before the infante do suck or taste anything, let the Prieste give him the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST, yea before the Mass, if necessity require. By this Testimony it appeareth not only that this custom was long observed, but also that it was joined with opinion of necessity, so that mass should not be tarried for, if the infant were in any danger.

Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later times, and not of old, and 1. touching the bodies of Angels.

According to the demand of the challenger, which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popish Church, to be shown him, I bring certain examples of diverse kinds of errors, which are not the matters in controversy between us, but such as if the Papists be not impudent, they them selves will acknowledge to be errors. Now cometh Bristow in this his balde and confusd reply, and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church, but those which I note upon such occasion, willeth all them that would know the true Church, to consider that these errors (if they be any) are so few and so light, that they may be a sure confirmation to Papists, and a just motive to all other to embrace the Church of this time, no less then of old time, considering it is no less, but much more unreprovable of y ^e adversary. Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seem, they are sufficient if they were but one, to prove y ^t which I intend: namely that the Popish Church hath erred, which being proved the surest pillar of Popery is broken, and all the rest of their opinions which they hold against the scriptures, & the true Church of God, when it is shown that the popish Church hath erred, will show themselves to be errors, which had nothing else to gain them credit, but this one false principle That the Popish Church cannot err.

And touching the bodies of Angels, where I say, Ar. 60. the seconde council of Nice determined that Angels and souls of men had bodies, were visible and circumscriptable, and therefore must be painted, affirming this to be y ^e judgment of the Catholic Church: Bristow answereth, that I misreport the matter, for it is not the councils determination, nor saying, but the saying only of Johannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica, rehearsed in the council, with an admonition given by Tharasius B. of Const against the madness of them that overthrew the images of our Lord & his undefiled mother, seeing this holy father doth show, that Angels also may be painted. But the truth is (as may appear to every man that will read the Council, act. 5) that this is a vain gloss of Bristow to elude the matter. After y ^e saying of Johannes is rehearsed, in which this gross error is contained, Tharasius the archb. of Const. thereupon concludeth:

: by which it is manifest, that Tharasius approveth the opinion of Johannes. Would you now have the determination of y ^e Council? It followeth immediately, By this it is manifest, that not I, but Bristow hath misreported the matter. Where I said (If this be not to induce an error to make men believe that angels and spirits have bodies visible and circumscriptable, there was never any error since the world began:) Bristow pulleth me back and saith, Soft man, other manner of errors have been defended since the world began. I wot well, & greater, but if any of them be a manifest error, this is as manifest as any of them all. Yet is Bristow so zealous in excusing this error, that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slander many of the most catholic and ancient fathers with it, Basilius. Athanasius, Methodius, yea, Augustine (he saith) make a question of it. In which point he showeth great ignorance or willful malice. For whatsoever is found in any of those ancient writers, sounding to such a purpose, it only by mistaking the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or corpus, which they used generally, for that which now in the schools (according to Aristotle) is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or substantia, substance comprehending both bodies and spirits, not that ever they thought that angels, spirits & souls of men had visible and circumscriptable bodies, such as may be set forth by painting, or such as the bodies of men & beasts are, or that they consisted either of ayery of fiery matter, as that blind Bishopp so imagined out of that verse of the Psalm. 104. He maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fire. Last of all he saith there is no determination of the Church to condemn the assertion as heretical, though there be sufficient to count it temerarious & erroneous: whither it be heretical, I will not now dispute, seeing by Bristow it is granted to be an error, & I have sufficiently proved, that it was maintained by the whole Council, which was as much as I required for that point.

2 Touching the Popes superiority over the Council.

The determinations of the Pope and of the general Council, being accounted among the Papists, as the rules of truth, I said are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them, which of them is superior to other, the Pope over the Council, or the Council over the Pope, & that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certainty of truth in either of them. To this Bristow answereth, that he thinketh him self able to satisfy me or any other reasonable man, if he saith, that then we are in a right belief, when we hold those determinations that are the determinations jointly both of the Pope & of the Council, as those of Trent. But he is gretly deceived, for while it is in doubt, whether may err, & ech part chargeth other with erring, it may be, & there is none other likelyhod to the contrary but y ^t they do both err, so y ^t neither I, nor any other reasonable mā may safely tie our faith to any of their determinations. For they whereof either part may err, being severed, may also err, but when they are joined together, you will say the Councils determination is uncertain, except it be confirmed by y ^e Pope. But if y ^e Pope also may err, how is it made certain by his confirmation? Another will say, the Popes determination is uncertain, except the general council give consent & approbation thereto. But if y ^e general council may err, what certainty is in y ^e approbatiō thereof? So y ^e doubt is as great as it was before, where Brist. affirmeth y ^t no man will bind us to believe y ^e determinations of any Council y ^t are not certainly confirmed by y ^e Pope: he saith more then he is able to warrant: for beside that D. Cole in his answer to the Bishop of Sarum manifestly defendeth the authority of the councils against the Pope, many popish divines were and are of that opinion, that the Pope may err, and is under the authority of the council.

But where I show a manifest error in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and approving one of another, of the Pope and the council: Bristow saith, the matter is not so uncertain amongst them, as I make it. For first he granteth, that the council of Ferrara and Florence, determined that the Pope was above the council, and that the council might err, and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same judgment. He granteth also that the councils of Constance and Basil determined the contradictory, namely that the council was above the Pope, and that the Pope may err. But where I said, that Martinus quintus, chosen Pope by the council of Constance, was of the same judgment, there he crieth, hoe, you prove not that, nor never shall prove. No shall, Master Bristow? why sir, is it like, that the council which had deposed three Popes, would choose a fourth man Pope, that was of a contrary judgment unto them? Yea, how could he accept the Papacie, being not void, if the council had not authority to depose the Pope, whosoever he was of the three, that was the right Pope. But seeing John the 23. was of the Emperor and the council accounted the right Pope, who also before his deposition, affirmed that the council of Constance was a most holy council and could not err: it is manifest, that this Martyn being a Cardinal, consented to the deposition of John the 23. session. 12. therefore he was of the same judgment that the council was. But if you would say, that as soon as he was made Pope, the spirit of Peter coming upon him, he was soudenly changed into a contrary judgment: his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you, where you say, that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassador, he confirmed 〈…〉 ose determinations alone of the council of Constance which were 〈…〉 ainst the errors of Wickeliefe, Hus, and Jerome of Prague. 〈…〉 or he did so generally confirm all decrees of that 〈…〉 uncell, that he commanded it to be inquired of persons suspected, in articles as followeth:

If Martyn the 5. would have every man to believe that the council of Constance representeth the universal church, he would also have them believe that the council of Constance cannot err, which council condemned the Pope of heresy, and deposed him of his Papacy. Again, another Article: But the council of Constance approved this assertion, that the council cannot err, and that the council is above the Pope to condemn him of error, which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith, & the health of men's souls, therefore Pope Martyn the 5. was of the judgment of the council of Constance. Finally in the end of the council of Constance the approbation of Pope Martyn is recorded of all things decreede • nd determined in matters of faith: Among which we must needs account this question of the Popes erring, and the councils not erring, which is accounted so necessary an article of faith, that the Papists strive for nothing so much at this day, as for that which was there condemned by the Council. Now it is certain that nothing was done or decreede more Councellike, then that solemn canon, That the Council is above the Pope, and hath authority to depose the Pope, which Pope John 23. confirmed and confessed, that the Council could not err, &c. And therefore it is utterly false, that Pope Martin confirmed those determinations alone, which were against the errors of Wicliff. Hus, & Hieronym, at the petition of the Polonian Am • assadour, as Bristow saith. For the request was made unto the Pope, not by one Ambassador, but by diverse, and them not from the king of Polonia only, but also from the duke of Lituania, that a certain book of one fryer John Falkenberge, containing notable heresies (as they said) & condemned by the deputies of the Council, &c. might be condemned in an open session of the Council, & so pronounced before the Council were dissolved: otherwise they protested in y ^t name of their princes, that they sustained grievance, & would appeal unto the next Council, unto whom the Pope answered as before generally, that whatsoever was decreed by the Council in form of a Council, concerning matter of faith, he did 〈…〉 owe and would observe, and according to a decree of 〈…〉 e same council, calleth another council to follow a • apia &c. showing therein not only his judgment, but • lso his obedience to the decree of the Council. Concer • ing Nicolaus 5. (Bristow saith) he did but only ratify •• e collations of benefices and such like things done in •• e Council of Basil. Herevnto I answer the words • re so general in that Bull of approbation of things c • acted and done in the council of Basil by Pope Nico • as, as they may contain all manner of decrees of the same Council. Here you se all & everything done & ordained in the Council of Basil whatsoever they be, expressed, or not expressed, confirmed and ratified by the Bull of Pope Nicholas the 5. And in the Council of Basil, the council of Constance, and especially that decree of the superiority of the council above the Pope, was decreed, & pope Eugenius, for his contumacy was deposed and another elected, all whose acts also pope Nicolas confirmeth and ratifieth.

Likewise where as Bristow saith that Pope Eugenius • he 4. did no more but declare that the council of Basil from the beginning to a certain time was a lawful council and lawfully continuated: The truth is, he did both by his own Bulls and by his own deputies a great deal more then Bristow confesseth: and even by this that he confesseth, it is easy to prove that Eugenius granted the council to be above the pope. For Eugenius had done what he could to dissolve the council of Basil, and sent out three bulls for the same purpose, notwithstanding the council was continued by authority of the council against his decrees: wherefor seeing he declared, (as Bristow confesseth) that the council was lawfully continued, contrary to his decrees (which he was compelled to revoke) he declared that the council was above the pope, and had authority to control him and his decrees. And that he did more then Bristow saith he did: It is manifest in the record of the council, session 16. That Eugenius declared the council of Basel to be lawful and lawfully continued until Anno dom. 1433. 18. Cal. Ian. revoking three bulls by which he had taken upon him before to dissolve the same council, in which bulls he complained that the council usurped authority above the pope. Afterwarde sess. 17. Anno. 1434. 24. of April. being Saturday, the Popes legates were incorporated into the council of Basil, being sworn to defend the council, and by special words, the decree of the council of Constance Sessi. 4. by which the council is decreed to be above the Pope, and the Pope bound to obey the council and the decrees thereof. And 6. Cal. Maij. The praesidents of pope Eugenius were admitted with these conditions under written: Videlicet sine omni iurisdictione coactiuo, saluo etiam modo procedendi in hoc sacro concilio hactenus obseruato, That is to say, without all jurisdiction of compelling, also having the manner of proceeding he • herto observed in this holy council. By this you see, • hat pope Eugenius did not only declare the council 〈◊〉 be lawfully continued, but also he declared his own • rror in revoking of his bulls of dissolution. Also by • is legates he sware to defend the council and to keep • he decree of the council of Constance, sessi. 4. which was • ade against the Popes superiority over the council. And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such pre • idency as the council would grant, without all iu • isdiction of compulsion, being himself compelled to •• taine y ^t order of proceeding which the council before • is presidencie was admitted, had observed. What Leo • he tenth in his Lateran council decreed against the • ouncell of Basil, I have nothing to do with it, except 〈◊〉 be to prove that one pope going against the decrees of • nother pope, and one council against another, that • either of both is to be credited. Howe childish my in • ultation is, howe void of victory my triumph, howe • nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are, as Bristow scoff • eth, I leave to all reasonable men to consider.

3. Touching the Constance councils presumption.

I said it was horrible praesumption, that the council of Constance decreede contrary to the word of God in plain words: That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to be received in both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive Church did so receive it: yet the custom of the Church of Rome shall prevail, and whosoever saith contrary it • an heretic. These words he saith I print (as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed) in a distinct letter as the plain words of the council, whereas these are not the words of the council. Here is the quarrel. No sir, I never meant to print these words as the words of the council, but as the sum and content of them, which because they were large I would not set down at large in a bymatter. But now being urged with falsification or at least false collectiō. I will set thē down as they a 〈…〉 Cō. Const sess • . 13. w ^t out any such interruptions as is us • all w ^t you to make, y ^t you might carry away y ^e simple readen mind from y ^e true sense of thē.

Here you see y ^e prelates of the council take • pon thē as great authority in altering y ^e matter of y ^e sa • rament, which is a necessary part of y ^e institutiō thereof, • s in ordering y ^e time in which it shall be ministered, which • s no part of y ^e institution thereof. Also y ^t they confess that • n y ^e primitive church y ^e sacrament was received in both • inds, therefore they are presumptuous to say hoc nō obstāte, • his notw ^t standing, y ^e custom of later years brought in • s reasonable & shall be observed as a law, the gainsayers • hereof being condemned & punished as heretics. Brist. ca • illeth, y ^t they say not y ^e custom of y ^e church of Rome, as I said: As though, whē they speak of the custom of the church, they mean any other church but y ^e church of R. Such babbles B. hath to cover their blasphemous & sacri • legious presumption.

Touching certain false interpretations of scripture.

To color y ^e false interpretations following, he comēdeath y ^e sayings of August. de doct. Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. & lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth every mā principally to shoot at y ^t sense of y ^e writer in expositiō of y ^e scripture, but if he miss y ^t sense & hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith, or is profitable to build charity towards god & our neighbor, he is not perniciously deceived &c. Vpō this Allen in his offer to y ^t protestāt saith, Ar. 86. & 87. Let any man prove unto me, that the true & only church of god may falsely interpret any sentence of holy scripture, & I recant. This general offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye, or willfully lying, as is contained in Saint Augustine's sayings, unto which Bristow would now seem to make relation, I did accept. And first I proved that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Western Church did falsely interpret this scripture John. 6. Except ye eat &c. and that to maintain a false opinion of the necessity of the communion for all persons, and even infantes, that should have life everlasting, and therefore repugnant to right faith, as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter.

Secondly I noted diverse places of scripture, not only falsely but also ridiculously expounded, in the second council of Nice, to maintain idolatry against the express commandment of God, and therefore contrary to the right faith and the love of God. Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith, that they are not the interpretations of the council (whose interpretation they are not bound to defend, but only their definitions) but they are the interpretations of particular persons. To this I answer, they are contained in y ^e synodal book sent into the Western Churches, to stir them up to idolatry (which book was answered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commandment, and in his name) therefore they are approved by the council, yea some of them are contained also in that report of the council, which is set down in the books of councils. The text of lighting a candell, and putting it under a bushel, is affirmed of Bristow to be well applied in the Epistle of Constantine, & his mother to the synod. But he is deceived. For there is no argument of setting of images upon the altar drawn out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal above rehearsed, confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus.

The seconde text, God made man according to his image: therefore we must have images in the Church: Bristow confesseth to be contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperor. But the same is approved in the council, and is the popes Epistle, whose credit is greater with you than the councils. But he doth not conclude (you say) that therefore we must have images in the Church. What then? forsooth that a • Adam being the image of God is to be honored, so every image is holy that i • made in the name of God, be it an image of Angels, prophets, Apostles, martyrs or just persons. This conclusion containeth more thē I urged, namely y ^e worshiping of images, & not the making of thē only. And because you are so impudent to say, it is not the council, but pope Adrianus that so saith &c: I will let the reader understand, that in the seconde action, there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian, read in the synod, one to the Emperors, the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople. Afterward Peter and Peters liuetenants of the Pope, required Tharasius to declare, whether he cōscented to y ^e Popes letters or no. Tharasius answered, that concerning the worshiping of images, he did allow the Popes letters. Thē said the Synod,

The 3. text (As we have heard, so we have seen in y ^e city of our God. ps. 48. to prove y ^t God must not be known by only hearing of his word, but also by sight of images:) Bristow affirmeth that it is not the council that citeth it, but a Deacon called Epiphanius, which readeth it to the council out of a book of his own: I answer he readeth it with approbation and good liking of the council, which in effect is all one. But he citeth it not (saith Bristow) to show how God must be known, but about the story of Christ's manhood, nor to prove immediately, y ^t the said story must be painted &c. as though God can be known but by Christ, for knowledge of whom, by imagery, he citeth this text of the Canticle also, Can. 2. show me thy face, & let me hear thy voice. And whether it be immediately, or mediately, certain it is, y ^t he citeth this text, Pal. 48. to prove, y ^t the pictures of saints are rightly delivered in the Church, none otherwise, then the reading of the holy gospel.

The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense, & falsified in words is John. 10. ver. 29. My father which gave them unto me (speaking of his sheep) is greater then all. Which text in the Council of Lateran, holden under Pope Innocent the third, is falsified in words after this manner. Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus. That which the father hath given me is greater then all: and interpreted to prove the eternal begetting of Christ of the substance of his father. To this Bristow answereth her • is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense. What sense Allen hath of false interpretation, I know not, sure I am, that a text cannot be truly interpreted in sense, when it is corrupted in words, which make the sense. Secondly he saith y ^t of my two crimes, I must strike out one: for supposing the text to be as the council alledgeth it, the interpretation is not unapt. But I reply, supposing the text to be as it is in deed: Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needs draw with it not only an unapt but also a wrong interpretation. But what couler of reason have you (saith he) that the council hath falsified the words of that text? Is it not in the vulgar Latin translation verbatim, as the council alledgeth it? yes verily. And so is the council cleared of that crime also. Not so soon as you ween: for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture, have crept into your translation, it had been the councils duty, not to have winked at it, if it could have seen it, much less to have confirmed it, so far forth, as of so many texts which clearly prove Christ to be consubstantial with his father, it could find none, but take this corrupted and falsified text. But the most ancient Latin writers, saint Augustine, saint Ambrose, and saint Hilary do read jump as we do, saith Bristow.

That doth not amende the matter one whit, but showeth y ^e error of the Latin Church to have the longer continued, which in the council of Lateran (if it could have espied it) ought rather to have been reformed then confirmed. But will you change your copy (saith Bristow) and frame your accusation anewe against the translation as differing from the Original, that is from the Greek? Sir I need not change my copy, for my accusation is already framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrary to the original truth: yet Bristow goeth on. But afore you do so, take my counsel with you, and be sure first that the Greek is so as you say. For some Greek copies, of ancient also had even as we have: as namely, the copy which saint Cyril, being a Greek Doctor, expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in John. cap. 10.

In deed it were not amiss, to take the council of such a learned Grecian as Bristow is, that I might be sure howe the Greek text is. For he can tell me of ancient Greek copies, yea namely of that which saint Cyril a Greek doctor did follow, and expound, which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text.

Verily the sight of such a copy would do me great pleasure. But until I may see it, I will suspende my judgment, and in the mean time, I would borrow a word or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower of this book of Bristow. I pray you sir, Have you perused and allowed thi • book? What else? do you not see it printed in the first leaf, Perused and allowed by me Thomas Stapleton? And are you so good a peruser and allower of books, Master Stapleton, that you cannot espy in them Chalk taken for Cheese? Do you not see your scholar Bristow allege saint Cyril a Greek doctor to prove the truth of the Greek text lib. 7. in John cap. 10. and when all cometh to all, there is no such book of Cyril the ancient Greek doctor extant, but it is poor Iodocus Clicthouius a late Latin writer, that hath supplied those 4. books of Cyril that are lost. Wherefore to return to you M. Bristow except your council be better and savor more of good learning and knowledge, you may keep it for your friends. As for your assertion, without doubt that the copy which your authentical translator followed, had even as he translated, helpeth you little or nothing: which if it were granted, howe can you prove that he translated it as you now read it?

Seeing it is certainly known to them that have conferred his translation with the original, that beside that in diverse places he giveth not the true sense of the Greek, in many texts also he is corrupted, where he had translated right. Wherefore how fully I am answered on every side concerning this text as you boast in the end, let the readers judge.

In y ^e last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting upon us that corrupt Latin translation, which all learned men do know to be corrupt, in such texts as are the most coulerable places for the defense of popish doctrine, of which I give one example for all. They allege the text (1. Cor. 10. Qui stat, videat ne cadat: he that standeth, let him take heed • he fall not) against the certainty of faith, where as the Greek hath not, he that standeth, but, he that thinketh he standeth, &c.

Bristow biddeth me look better in the text, their translation is not as I charge it, but even as I say the Greek to be: Qui se existimat stare &c: And therefore in the margent he biddeth, stand out of his light that the child may see. Might not I say shore up your eyes syr. Richard, and see that I do not say, the text is so translated, but so alleged. They allege the text, Qui stat, videat ne cadat. And if you require mine author who allegeth it so: look in Haymo upon the very place, and you shall find these very words. Qui stat in fide & operibus, videat ne cadat: He that standeth in faith and works, let him see y ^t he fall not. And if you would have a later writer that so alledgeth it, look in Gregory Martin one of your brood, who in his book of schism allegeth it in so many words: Qui stat, videat ne cadat, in the first chapter of his book.

And what hath brought them to this understanding, but your corrupt translation? Qui se existimat star • , he that judgeth or is persuaded that he standeth. For existimare signifieth properly to judge or esteem upon good grounds, to think certeinely, and not like putare, which word Ambrose useth in the interpretation of this text, and signifieth to think vainly. And so is existimare used by your translator in other places. Rom. 6. Ita & vos existimate, &c. So you esteem or judge yourselves to be dead unto sin &c. And again 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo vt ministros, Christi &c. Let a man thus esteem or judge of us, as of the ministers of Christ. Again Iac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate &c. My brethren count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations. In all which places existimare signifieth to think certeinely & not vainly, as in this text, 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare, he that vainly thinketh that he standeth, let him take heed that he falleth not. I confess I might have brought an hundredth places of scripture in which the corruption is more clear unto every simple man's understanding, but this I took to be sufficient, seeing to prove the corruption of the translation, was not the principal matter of the demand which I answered, but to yield a reason why the popish Church did not as well corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine contained in the same.

The first part.

He rehearseth many sentences of mine mangled & interrupted with his own glosses in which I profess, that No opinion is heresy which is not contrary to the holy scriptures, although it be accounted heresy of the world: where he slandereth me to term them the world, which before I confessed to be the true Church. The places Art. 44. where I speak of them which preaching in these later times against popery, have been of the Romish Church condemned for heretics, as Waldo, Wickelief, Hus, &c. In the process following where I said (y ^t if Arius had not been an Arian, the opinion he held against prayer for the dead, could not have made him an heretic) Bristow compting my saying to be blasphemy, (belike against the Popes kitchē) addeth y ^t it seemeth I knew not the purpose of Augustine in his book de Haer. which he saith was the purpose of Epiphanius also, not to confute but only to report of heresies y ^t had benbefore his time: Seeing it is enough to know y ^t the catholic Churches judgment is against thē: And that it helpeth much the faithful heart only to know what must not be believed, although he be not able to confute it by disputing. And why seem I ignorant of this purpose? except it be because I said, y ^t neither Epiphanus nor Augustine, reproved by scripture, that which in Arius they cōpted to be an error. But the case is so clear (saith Bristow) that the very adversary confesseth, that it was the Catholik Church that judged Arius to be an heretic. Yea sir for his Arianism, but I never confessed, neither can you ever prove y ^t any judgment of the Catholic Church in general council passed against Arius for denying prayer for the dead, before the days of Epiphanius or Augustine, although the error of prayer for the • ead in that age was commonly received, not upon any good ground of Canonical scripture, but upon a corrupt custom first brought in by heretics. Afterward where I following an allegory of dogs used by Allen, tell him y ^t he must not teach his scholars to bark & baule against us, nothing but The Church, the Church, like • inkers curres &c. he crieth out in the margent, O worthy estimation that he hath of the Church, as though, I think less worthily of the Church, because I deride the vain boasting of the name of y ^e Church in thē which are nothing less then the true church. Neither do I appoint mine enemy not to invade me with a gunne (as he saith) when I make the scripture only to be my weapon both inuasiue and defensive. But it is a great absurdity as he • weeneth, that I say an heretic is he which in y ^e Church, obstinately mainteyneth an opinion contrary to the scriptures: seeing S. John saith, exierunt a nobis, they are gone out from us. And if an heretikee be a man in the Church we are cockesure, with all heretics, and the Papists only in danger. Why Bristow, make ye no difference between him that is in the Church, and him y ^e is of the Church? They be not all menbers of y ^e Church, that be in y ^e Church, and therefore S. John saith of them y ^t are gone frō us, If they had been of us they would have tarried with us. And do you account him an heretic that holdeth an error clean out of the Church? then may you count all Pagans, Turks, and Jews, to be heretics. What say you of Antichrist that sitteth ever in the Temple of God? it helpeth not heretics, that they rise up in the visible Church, from whence also they are often times cast out, so long as they be not members of the body of Christ, which is the invisible Church, and heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of us all.

Where I said, that whosoever holdeth an opinion obstinately, which he is not able to prove by y ^e word of God, although he have many authors before him, yet he is nevertheless an heretic. Bristow addeth in the margent, though it be S. Augustine himself, and though he hold the foundation here. cap. 5. Touching the former part, I say not only though it were Saint Augustine, but although it were Saint Peter himself or an Angel from heaven, Gal. 1. Touching the later parte, I answer, my meaning is of such opinions, as are against the foundation, and so is my whole discourse, purg 412. whence this saying is borrowed. Agayne, where he concludeth that I confess Arius, Jovinian, and Vigilantius to have been condemned by the true Church of Christ, in such points of doctrine, as we agree with him: I answer as before of Arius alone, I never made such confession.

In that I refuse to find the first authors of all their errors, he saith, I am fain to flee to my cold exception of only scripture, as though to justify our doctrine, by the Apostles, and that so sensibly, were not enough. O sensible justification, by which all errors, whose first authors cannot be found must be laid upon the Apostles. But most ridiculous of all is Fulke, where he cometh in with this exception vpō Tertullian's rule. Id esse verum &c. That is true whatsoever is first, y ^t is false & forged which is later. But how shall the first doctrine be known, but by the word of God, wherein all the doctrine of God is taught? What is here I pray you to be laughed at? Forsooth, Bristow saith, T ••• ullian hath there another rule against such heresies, as presumed to say, their founders lived in the Apostles time. But this rule he giveth against all such, as rise any time after as Arius, Luther Calvin, &c. bidding us consider what was taught and belecued immediately before they arose: for that vnd • ub •• dly is the truth, and their later doctrine is falsehood. But what if Bristow take Richard for Robert, is not he then ridiculous? The rule of Tertullian whereof I speak, Purg. 410. & Ar. 42. is written in his book aduersus Praxeam. although Allen do falsely quote it de praescriptionibus. But what if Tertullian even in this rule given against heretics in his book de praescriptionibus do expressly affirm the word of God to be the trial of that which 〈◊〉 former and true to convince that which is latter and • lse, is not Bristow most ridiculous of all? His words • e these:

Where is there here any word of Bristows gloss of Tertullian bidding us consider &c? I think he had not red y ^e place in Tertullian himself, but followed some papists collection upon it, and because he could not avoid that which I said, he thought it best by calling it so much and so often ridiculous, to laugh it out, as they say, when he was not able otherwise to answer it.

Likewise I said, that we refuse not the rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis concerning antiquity, so you can prove God to be the author, the Prophets and Apostles for witnesses: under this antiquity that which had an erroneous beginning shall have a shameful ending, Purg. 399. Here Bristow taketh advantage of the Printers error, although he be admonished 〈◊〉 of in the Corrections, and not content with that, 〈…〉 fieth my words making me to say, as for witness 〈◊〉 this antiquity we pass not for them. Yes 〈◊〉 we esteem all good witnesses of that ancient 〈◊〉 whereof God is the author. But you say y ^e rule w 〈…〉 receive, proveth the Apostles to be authors of sole 〈…〉 payer for the dead in y ^e Mass, & such like articles 〈◊〉 taught and believed, before Luther began such 〈…〉 uations &c. But I reply, that Vincentius rule, is 〈◊〉 such fools fable, but requireth antiquity to be 〈…〉 tinued always even from Christ, which seeing you 〈◊〉 not show, no • other conditions which he requi 〈…〉 for your articles, his rule helpeth you nothing at a • 〈◊〉 rule which he handleth at large throughout his b 〈…〉 is briefly set down in this sentence.

Examine your articles by this rule a • d you 〈◊〉 find not one of them catholic. So that my excep 〈…〉 of y ^e sovereign authority of only scripture 〈…〉 death 〈◊〉 well with the rules both of Tertulli •• and Vince 〈…〉 Lyri 〈…〉 . For to the truth, as Aristotle saith, all 〈…〉 ges agree that are true, but f • lshoode soon bewrayeth itself.

2 Aga 〈…〉 the A 〈…〉 〈◊〉 .

Aga 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ed traditions of the Apo 〈…〉 , I make exceptiō▪ of the writings of the Apostles to b •• the only c 〈…〉 yne 〈…〉 esse of the •• true tradition. A • d I say All •• bl •• ph • mously f • thereth • ppon the Apo 〈…〉 , the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for y ^e 〈…〉 . 〈…〉 we chargeth me nevertheless to affirm, y ^t 〈◊〉 , Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, and a great ma 〈…〉 are witnesses hereof, Pur. 362. wherein he shame 〈…〉 y belieth me, for that I do only rehearse parte of 〈…〉 s words which affirmeth them to be witnesses. 〈…〉 ch thing Bristow might easily see by the diuersi 〈…〉 of print, if he had not been disposed to ••• under me. 〈…〉 er this by the example of Allen, which is a great po 〈…〉 , I pose the Papists with this question: Why God 〈…〉 uld have none of the Apostles to put this matter or 〈…〉 e word thereof in writing, which afterward should 〈◊〉 disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bristow after much bibling out of S. Augustine, 〈…〉 e Apostles have not left in writing the whole order 〈…〉 celebration of y ^e sacraments: answereth, y ^t one piece of 〈◊〉 that it was omitted by the apostles, was for bre 〈…〉 s sake. But I (Bristow) do not speak of any order or 〈…〉 me of ceremonies, which because they are variable, 〈…〉 cording to times, places & persons, the apostles have 〈◊〉 prescribed: but of y ^e doctrine of praying & sacrifising 〈…〉 r the dead, which in much less b •• uitie then the 〈…〉 stles used, might have been without any tedi 〈…〉 nes let down, at the least in one word mentioned. 〈…〉 herfore brevity could be no piece of the cause, but a 〈…〉 ore & miserable refuge of a papist driven to the wall 〈…〉 r want of a better answer. But if this be a piece, what is then 〈◊〉 supplemēt of y ^e whole cause? Bristow answereth in these words: 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 g. Which 〈…〉 so many • f 〈…〉 one of • wspan • w •• ld 〈…〉 . Do I imagine (Bristow▪ & am so greatly 〈…〉 ceiued▪ I follow not mine own imagination but their 〈…〉 ne writing. S. John testifieth that those things which 〈◊〉 had written, were su 〈…〉 to obtain everlasting life 〈…〉 y believing them. Io 〈…〉 . S. Luke •• eweth his purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 th in a 〈◊〉 sum, the truth of all things, 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 les delivered, concerning the doc •• ine & 〈…〉 ngs of Christ L 〈…〉 . Ac 〈…〉 . S. Paul 〈…〉 eth y ^t the holy scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe 〈…〉 prepared to all good works, 2 Tim. 2. But you have great reason to prove that they purposed not to put all in writing: because neither so many of them, nor o 〈…〉 of them so often, would have mentioned one thing: wh 〈…〉 as contrariwise it is manifest thereby, that they study not so much for brevity but that they might have expressed in a word or two prayers & sacrifice for y ^t dea • seeing so many of them, & someone so often, doeth mention one thing. Again it were against reason, that they should mention one thing so often, whic • though it be profitable, yet it is not necessary to be often mentioned: & to omit altogether such matten as are necessary to be known, and not in one word mention them. The purpose of the holy ghost, that Bristow doth imagine, were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect: that the gospels were written only to show Christ to say Consummatum est and all things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him: the Acts of the Apostles to show, but as it were the first birth of the Church: the Apocalypse to show the whole course of the Church, to the ende of the world, The other books were written (saith he) specially against the perfidious Jews & other false masters of that time: As likewise in every age afterward we have the Ecclesiastical (I say not the Canonical) writers and councils. See you not how the blasphemous dog▪ restraineth the use of y ^e Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written, & compareth Ecclesiastical writers and councils, w ^t the canonical scriptures? If this that he saith were true, the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to salvation as S. Paul saith w ^t out traditions & Ecclesiastical writers. 2. Tim. 3.

Those things which S. Paul promiseth to set in order when he cometh, 1 Cor. 11. I said must be understood not of doctrine but of ceremonies, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth signify. Bristow answereth, that the solemn prayer for the dead in the celebration of the sacrifice, is one of Saint Paul's ordinances. I reply, if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contained Saint Paul's writing, yea, or in any part of the cano 〈…〉 all Scriptures, we would not strive for the form 〈◊〉 prayer. But if we may add new doctrines upon 〈…〉 ler of the Apostles tradition, neither is the Scrip 〈…〉 e so perfect as the holy Ghoste affirmeth it to be, 〈…〉 there can the gap be shut from any heresy, to 〈…〉 ast it self of the tradition of the Apostles, as the Va 〈…〉 tinians, and other heretics have done, and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do.

But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their wri 〈…〉 gs. To this objection I answer, that their writings 〈◊〉 the only true testimony of their tradition to us. 〈…〉 stowe replieth: So were they not to the Thessalonians, 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by word of mouth, 〈…〉 tly by writing. I rejoin, that we have no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes, but by their writing we never heard 〈◊〉 deliver anything by word of mouth, but we know 〈…〉 ir writings contain the sum of their preachings. Concerning the doubtfulness and contradiction y ^t 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers them selves, about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not contained in the Scriptures: Bristow 〈…〉 nswereth first, their doubts are not of the traditions, 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons, and other matters con 〈…〉 ning the traditions, which is as much as I shown by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings, Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39. Pur. 317.

The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostom (where he saith, first that small help can be procured for the dead, afterward he saith, the Apostles knew that much commodity came to the dead by praying • or them) Bristow answereth is none at all. For in 〈…〉 e first place, he speaketh of riche men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their souls by their riches, that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might have procured 〈…〉 em selves: because a man's own works are also meritorious 〈◊〉 everlasting reward so are not his friends works meritori 〈…〉 unto him at all, no nor so satisfactorious of temporal pain, 〈…〉 his own nothing like. But how a man's own works 〈…〉 his friends works, may be either meritorious or satisfactorious anything at all, he bringeth no proof 〈◊〉 all. And that he saith of Chrysostom is utterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos, unto those riche men so dying only, what reaso • is there, why orantes pro istis, should not be referred unto them also? But seeing the memory which he sai •• was decreede of the Apostles, was general for all the • that departed in faith, why should not that, much profit coming thereby, pertain to them, of who •• he said before, that small help they could have? Likewise, that I added further of the Cathecumeni wh •• Chrysostom judged of helping them, Bristow pas 〈…〉 over and saith never a word unto it.

3 Against the Churches authority.

I say plainly, the practice and authority of y ^e church, without the word of God, revealed in the scripture • , is no rule of truth. Where I commend Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead, are not taken out of the Scriptures, Bristow saith I am hasty to take that which Tertullian doth not give, as he hath shown in the third chapter: but seeing in the third Chapter, he referreth me to the 9. Chapter, thither also will I refer him for answer.

Where Allen alledgeth a rule of S. Augustine, Quod legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi: that the order of the ch •• ches prayer (saith Bristow) is even a plain prescription to all the faithful what to believe, because Fulke could not make his flourish with that ende, forward, he turneth the staff, as though S. Augustine & D. Allen had said, that the law of believing should make a law of praying. And here he crieth out of falsification by changing. So saith S. Augustine (saith Bristow:) in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians (saith Allen) but in what book or chapter neither of both doeth show among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians. Wherefore if I have altered the form of words yet without falsification, especially seeing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures, 〈…〉 t faith should teach us to pray, rather then prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to believe. For howe shall they call upon 〈◊〉 , saith the Apostle, in whom they have not belee 〈…〉 d? Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutual relation 〈…〉 ween the cause and the effects, the one argueth & 〈…〉 oueth the other. For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye, so the prayer is an argument of the faith, accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceived. But true faith come 〈…〉 th only by hearing the word of God, therefore 〈…〉 e prayer cometh only by hearing the word of 〈…〉 d, and is not acceptable to God except it be framed 〈…〉 ording to the word of God. After this, he saith, I 〈◊〉 as bold to except against the practice common 〈…〉 d even in the canonical scripture, because I allow 〈…〉 t the practice of Judas Machabaeus contained in the 〈…〉 phane and lying book of the Maccabees.

I said Ar. 86. There is never heresy but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question: 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the stay of a man's con 〈…〉 nce. Hereof Bristow gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉 : Because heretics make doubt of the Church, this heretic 〈◊〉 that no Christian lean unto it. Yes verily, I will have 〈◊〉 men that know the Church, lean to the Church, de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies: but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the truth, and of the Church, I say only scripture i • 〈◊〉 stay of their conscience, to try the truth and the Church both: seeing both heretics & Catholics make as great challenge to the Church as to the truth.

But some heretics make doubt of the Scriptures (saith he) either all, or some piece, as you do of the • achabees. I answer, if any deny all Scriptures, 〈…〉 ey are more like Pagans and Atheists then heretics, 〈…〉 th whom we are not to reason by authority of 〈…〉 riptures, but by other inducements, such as were 〈…〉 d to the Pagans. Against those heretics that re 〈…〉 iue some part of the Scriptures, we are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receive, as our saui 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Sadducees out of the books of 〈…〉 oses, because they received none other Scripture. For the book of Macha bees we doubt not, but are certain, it is a profane book, as I have shown by many arguments, never received in the primitive Church f •• 400. years after Christ.

Where I say we submitted our selves to all Church • , but so that they allow no consent or submission, but 〈◊〉 the truth which must be tried only by gods word • Bristow saith with that, but so we will consent the true •• to Jack straw. Verily to consent unto Jack stra •• in truth, I take it to be none absurdity: but I speak not only of consent, but also of submission which we are not ready to yield to any but such whose authority 〈◊〉 reverence.

As for the 4. rules enacted by Parliament, for condemning heresy, if Bristow would understand them like a quiet subject, and not deride them like a scornful traitor, he might understand, y ^t the three later are not contrary to the first, which determineth heresy by contrariety to the canonical scripture, which is declared either in y ^e 4. first general councils, or in any other general council agreeing with the scripture, or may upon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter: Not that the Parliament ever did imagine that it had authority to make truth heresy, or to make anything heresy, which is not contrary to the canonical scriptures.

After this he chargeth me that I will not believe the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures. What if I would not? were I worse then the Thessalonians, or Bereans, which daily searched the scriptures, to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were even so? Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture (saith Bristow) and turn the curse that saint Paul pronounceth, Gal. 1. which was of preaching, as if it were of only scripture. I answer, my words are these, if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed: but seeing we have no certeinty of the word of God, since the Apostles departure, but the canonical scriptures, which do contain all that they preached, the same curse is rightly applied to them that teach any other way of saluatiō, then that which is taught in y ^e holy Scriptures. The rest of this division is spent in showing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of only Scriptures against councils, 〈…〉 he see apostolic and succession of bishops, with a note 〈◊〉 the ende, what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly evidence, whereof if I had any couler myself, 〈…〉 o mountybanke peddler, is so facing and boasting, as I • nd my fellows. As frank as I seem in renouncing • hat goodly evidence, I trust to be careful enough; to • old fast the evidence of eternal life, which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God: and if I and my fellows boast in • hem, because our boasting is in God, I doubt not but • ee shall be better accepted of him, then they that count • hat boasting a stale exception, and boast in vanity, 〈…〉 ust in lying, and at least make flesh for their arm, & • heir heart departeth from the living God.

4 Against the fathers.

Although I challenge the Papists to prove their do 〈…〉 rine of Purgatory and prayers for the dead, out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholic fathers that lived within 200. years 〈…〉 ter Christ: because I know they cannot, yet in that 〈…〉 allenge, I say nothing contradictory to my former 〈…〉 ssertion, that only the word of God contained in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures, is the judge of all doctrine, and trial of truth, and stay of a Christian man's conscience against anything y ^t is taught to be believed unto salvation, or concerning the worship of God, either contrary to it, or beside it. But Fulkes two onelyes (saith Bristow) namely only the moste ancient Church, and only Scripture, are utterly without all ground, and but 〈…〉 eere voluntary. If it be without ground, to make the word of God the only judge of godliness, and the most ancient Church the best witness thereof, let every Christian conscience consider. As for the voluntariness, • f you understand the challenges to be voluntary, be • ause you will not accept them, let your will stand in 〈…〉 eede of reason: but if you call them voluntary, because you need not accept them, and yet approve yourselves good Christians: remember who it is, that saith, my sheep hear my voice and not a strangers, & let every man see whereto the brag of antiquity is come, when you will not be tied to the most ancient Churches testimony, and the eldest writers of the same.

Now, concerning other by quarrels, and cavils, whereas I said: Whatsoever we find in the fathers agreeable to the Scriptures, we receive it, with their praise: and whatsoever is disagreeable to the scriptures, we refuse with their leave. Bristow noteth within a parenthesis: He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures. But who made him so privy of my meaning? my words import no such thing: for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them. I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil. lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian, that which I spake of all the fathers in general.

I think Bristow will teache S. Augustine shortly, by that which agreeth with the Scripture, to mean only that which is expressed in so many words.

Where I said, that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest word of God, and the credit of the Apostles, there is no cause that we should be carried away with them. Bristow saith, in the margent, a • though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles. And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles, when we say, The Apostles have not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings: you answer, but the doctors have taught prayers for the dead in their writings.

Where I say the authority of mortal men, is not to be received, he noteth our absurdity, because not only Melanchthon and such like (as Allen hath told • s) were mortal men: but also in the same term of mortal men, are the Apostles them selves comprehended. And what of this? Do we build upon the authority of Melanchthon, or of Peter and Paul, as they were mortal men? No verily: We build upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the corner stone, and the only author of the doctrine, whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses, who spake and writ as they were moved by the holy ghost, and therefore their writings we receive as the word of God, which the spirit of God hath endyted by the pen of the Apostles.

Where I said: We dare not depend upon any one man • • udgement, for we must depend only upon God's word. Bristow answereth: Even so dealt the unbelievers, and the doubtful and weak with the Apostles in their life time, yea, and • ith Christ him self: and yet to win such persons, both the Apostles and Christ him self, condescended to them accordingly. And why do not you follow the example of Christ, & of his Apostles, to win so many thousands, as do refuse your doctrine, because you do not justify it by the authority of the holy Scriptures? But the faithful, (you think) for all that were not so strait laced, but believed them upon their own word, both Christ and his Apostles, because of the spirit of truth, that he sent to them. And God be thanked, we as faithful men, acknowledge without controversy, the spirit of truth in Christ, and his Apostles. But he hath not sent his spirit to them only (saith Bristow) but also to his Church after them forever. We doubt not, but he hath given his spirit to his Church, but not in such full measure, as to his Apostles. And if he had, how should we know that Church that hath the same spirit, but by trial of the scriptures, which were undoubtedly written by the same spirit. Bristow saith, the faithful will no less believe the Church, at all times, for the same spirit, then the Apostles. He must first prove, the spirit so given to the Church, that she can no more err in her decrees, then the Apostles could in their writings. Secondly, if that were proved, the trial of the Scriptures is necessary to discern the true Church from all false congregations, which all boast of the spirit of truth, as much as the true Church. And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. John, biddeth us not believe every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God, we know none so sure a trial, as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures, whether it be a multitude of men, or several persons, of one age, or another, of one degree or other, that offereth to teache any doctrine, which he or they pretend to have of the spirit of God.

Last of all, where I said: Age can never make falsehood to be truth, and therefore I w • y not your proud brags worth a straw. Bristow noteth in the margent, It is pride to follow the fathers, and humility to condemn them. Whereto I answer, to boast of the fathers to maintain an old error, is stinking pride, and it is not against true humility to make fathers and mothers, and all things else subject to the truth of God's word, revealed in the holy scriptures.

The second parte.

When in all this Chapter, you deny, only scripture to be of sovereign authority, sufficiency, and credit, to teache us all the will of God, are you not impudent, to say, the question is not of the authority of the Scriptures? But I supposing the controversies to be of the meaning, and not of the authority, Pur. 363. do answer nothing whether the likelihood b • on our side, or on the ancient doctors side, for the meaning of the scripture. What then? I answer, the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needless in that controversy: where some of y ^e doctors confess prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures, other wrest the Scriptures so manifestly, that the Papists them selves are ashamed to use those texts for such purposes. This answer I trust, will satisfy reasonable men for that controversy. After this, he saith, I count myself and my companions happy, for such blind presumption, to search the meaning of the Scriptures, only out of the Scriptures, without the commentaries of doctors, but as he troweth, not without the commentaries of Calvin. But herein, as in all things almost, he belieth me: for I never spake word against the reading of the commentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning, but only against absolute credit to be given to their exposition, without weighing how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places.

Likewise, where I compare the whole heap of superstition & error, out of which Allen raiseth a mist of men's devises to a dunghill: Bristow noteth, that I make the doctors writings a dunghill. Surely what superstition or error so ever be in the doctors, as the sweeping of a fair house, is meet to be cast on a dunghill. Let Bristow or Allen, if he list, say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors. And yet it followeth not, that the doctors writings are a dunghill, more then that a kings palace is a dunghill, because the sweepings thereof are meet for the dunghill.

To pass over his railing terms of drunkenness, & blindness, &c. Let us come to the meaning of the scriptures, where I said, we shall be never the more certain of the truth, whether we challenge, or leave the likelihod of understanding y ^e scriptures to the doctors.

Bristow answereth, whosoever expoundeth the scripture unto that wherein the doctors do agree, shall be ever most certain of truth (which is enough) though not always certain of that same very places meaning. We are then much the near, when the question is of the scriptures meaning, if by the consent of the doctors, we cannot be certain of the scriptures▪ meaning. And if that truth (as we believe that all truth) is in the scriptures, howe can we be certain of the truth by the agreement of the doctors, where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures?

Where I answer, that we have our measure of God's spirit, as the doctors had, although we agree not with them in all interpretations, even as Cyprian and Cornelius, were both endued with God's spirit, although they agreede not in exposition and judgment of the scriptures: Bristow replieth, that Cyprian was of Cornelius his judgment implicit, though explicit, he were of an erroneous judgment. And so is every Catholic erring of ignorance, in effect of the truth with other Catholics not erring, because he q • e • lie. continueth in unity with them, and doth not obstinately hold his error against them. But so is not the case between the old Doctors and us: for neither will we be reformed by them, neither would they be reformed by A • rius, Iouinianus &c. whom he calleth our forefathers.

If you have no greater diversity then this, the case will be all one, for neither would Cyprian be reformed by Cornelius, neither would Cornelius be re-Formed by Cyprian. But if the old Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the dead, of Catholics in their time, as we can make in this time, although they would not be reformed by Arius an heretic, yet charity moveth us to think, they would have yielded to the truth revealed by a Catholic.

Where I conclude, that the hard places of scripture▪ are best understood by conference of the easier, adding the ordinary means of wit, learning, &c. adding that whosoever is negligent in this search may ea • ie be deceived: Bristow noteth, a comfortable do 〈…〉 rine for the ignorant forsooth: As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman, ought to be ignorant in the 〈…〉 riptures, so far forth as they teache the way of sal 〈…〉 ation: otherwise it is no discomfort unto them, all •• ough they understand not every hard place of the • criptures.

After this he gathereth, that I place all in a man's own 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men, but to read the scriptures, 〈…〉 onferre the places, and so gather the meaning by him self. So that with him, it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I received my 〈…〉 ule,

It is nothing • hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scrip • ures, by earnest prayer to be obtained of the interpretors. But if diligence may do so much, he tell •• th us of the great diligence used in the Popes semi • arie, for England, under the government of Doctor Allen (which proveth it self to be a semi • arie of treason) in much reading and conferring of the scriptures, with all other helps and means, whereby they must be more certain of truth then we, by mine own rule. No, Bristow, not they that read the scriptures with such mind as you do (without the extraordinary grace of God) shall never come to the knowledge of the truth, which they seek not in them, but the confirmation of their prejudicated, erroneous, and heretical opinions.

There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees. Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum, which showeth the let of your understanding, and in the ende concludeth,

Concerning the brag of Hebrew and Greek texts, to be proved against us, whē we see the book, we will show you our judgment. In the mean time if the author show not more wit in suppressing his labor, then you in vaunting of it before it come forth, I assure you he will show himself to the world to have neither learning wisdom, nor honestic.

The 3. part.

I mean by only scripture, whatsoever is taught in plain words, or may be gathered by necessary conclusion, which is as good as express words. For all truth needful for us to know (say I) may be proved by scripture, either in plain words or by necessary conclusion, which is all one. Where I urge Allen to show some sentence of scripture to maintain prayer and sacrifice for the dead, Bristow saith, I confessed that I have heard of him diverse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19. but read that page who will, and they shall find never a word of such confession. The scripture itself, that I except against by calling for Canonical scripture, is the book of Maccabees, which he promiseth to prove to be canonical in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receive answers.

The 4. part.

Before he rehearse my words of promise, he repeteth 〈…〉 w precise he hath shown me: first to admit no eui 〈…〉 nce that they allege, but scripture only, both in all 〈…〉 ntrouersies and also in the exposition of scripture: 〈…〉 at evidence I admit, and howe far, hath been show 〈…〉 before, & more at large in my answer to his motives 〈…〉 d demands. Secondly he saith, I admit no scripture, 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them, that I cannot avoid but by denying it to be canonical, though I grant 〈…〉 o have the confirmation of y ^e same true Church, which 〈…〉 oueth me, as the holy ghost, to receive the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical. This he speaketh for the Maccabees 〈…〉 oke, which although I deny to be canonical, yet I 〈…〉 uer granted to have the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch, neither yet ever had it: again where he saith, 〈…〉 e true Church moveth me, as the holy ghost, to re 〈…〉 ue the other scriptures for canonical, he doth me 〈…〉 onge for the Church moveth not me as y ^e holy ghost, 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of moving: y ^e holy Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moveth me, the true Church as a wit 〈…〉 sse.

Thirdly he saith, I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉 sse to be canonical, unless it make so expressly, so plainly, so manifestly, & so necessarily with them, that it cannot by any subtlety be avoided. This proposition being in the copulative is false, for I admit arguments, taken either out of y ^e express and plain words of scripture, or of collection necessarily concluding. Let him make a new logic, if he will have me admit arguments that do not conclude necessarily.

Howe I observe that law that I so rigorously exact, 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter. Then fol • oweth a large rehearsal of sentences wherein I affirm, • hat by the grace of God, I am able to prove every arti 〈…〉 e of faith that we hold against the papists, by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures. Bristow saith in the next chapter, I shall have ynowe, yet if 〈◊〉 will, one article shall be this. That Antichrist is not one certain person: That I shall easily prove thus: One certain person is not many Antichrists, there ha •• been many: therefore Antichrist is not one certain person. The minor is saint John. Epist. 1. Cap. 2. verse. 18. Again, Antichrist is he, whosoever denieth that Jesus is Christ: One certain person only denieth not that Jesus is Christ: Therefore Antich rist is not one certain person only, 1. Johan. 2. verse. 22. Again, Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is the spirit of Antichrist: but this is not the spirit of one certain person: ergo Antichrist is not one certain person. The beast described Apocalypse 13. and expounded Apocalypse 17. is Antichrist, but many kings are the partes of that beast, therefore Antichrist is no one certain person. The whore of Babylon which is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the city of Rome, is borne by the beast beforesaide which is Antichrist, but the city of Rome is not borne by one certain person, therefore Antichrist is no one certain person.

An other article that he requireth me to prove is: That the Churches flying into the wilderness, at the coming of Antichrist, is to become invisible to the world: Although this article be not a matter of faith, in controversy between us, neither yet so affirmed of me, as though to be in the wilderness, were nothing else, but to be invisible to the world: yet I will prove so much as I affirmed, that the Church being in the wilderness, is invisible to the world. The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not, is to them invisible: But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wilderness: Therefore the Church being in the wilderness is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world, invisible.

Thirdly he requireth me to prove that the beginning of that coming and flying should be so soon after Christ's passion. Before I prove this, it were reason you should tell how sone you mean, or I said, such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing should be. And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the ende so 〈…〉 g before Christ's seconde coming. The holy 〈…〉 ost declareth Apoc. 12. ver. 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken up to God and his throne, the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church, being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wilderness. The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratiuely & obscurely described by days, months, 〈…〉 d years, and generally by a time, times, and half a 〈…〉 e, which I never took upon me to define howe 〈…〉 ng they should be, in account of our years, nor when 〈…〉 coming of Christ should be.

After this he saith, I triumph in lying, when I af 〈…〉 me the Papists dare not abide the trial of only 〈…〉 ipture, whereas he laboreth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter, as to prove, that the trial of true do 〈…〉 ine ought not to be only by scripture. And 〈…〉 terwarde he saith plainly, they refuse the trial 〈…〉 only scriptures, but not by scriptures, no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith, because they refuse only faith. 〈…〉 here he noteth me for foysting in the word one 〈…〉 , in the minor of this argument. The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voice of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y: But the Romish Church will in no wise be 〈…〉 led only by the voice of Christ: therefore she is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought every reasona 〈…〉 le man would have understood, only, in the major 〈…〉 so, seeing she is no honest spouse that will be ruled 〈…〉 y the voice of another man then her husband, or 〈…〉 hat will be ruled by her self, or take upon 〈…〉 er to overrule her husband, I added also in the 〈…〉 inor, which Bristow omitteth, that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her own inventions, and come 〈…〉 mitteth gross idolatry. Ar. 99.

Where I charge the Popish Church with blas 〈…〉 mie, for submitting God's word to her own judgment: 〈…〉 he answereth it is all one as if I should say, y ^e Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will, b • cause they took upon them to judge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter said the unlearned, being hi • self a fisherman, and unstable, did misconster S. Pau • epistles &c. to their own damnation: which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristow could make us believe, that the Ap • stles took upon them without the spirit of God, 〈◊〉 contrary to the scriptures in other places, to judge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture, as the Popish Church doeth: 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter, being an Apostle endued with so m • ny graces, was unlearned, because he had been a 〈◊〉 sherman.

Agayne where I said, the Popish Church ma 〈…〉 festly rejecteth the whole authority of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures, when she affirmeth that no book 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonical, but so far forth as sh 〈…〉 will allow it: This saith Bristow, is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them, manifestly rei • cted the whole &c: because they made a Canon or C • nons, whereof the said scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonical, whereupon him self also counteth th 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost. That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonical of such a Canon it is not yet proved, for they may be called the Canon and Canonical, because they are the certain rule to direct 〈◊〉 matters of religion. But admit the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them, in having the spir 〈…〉 of discretion, made such a Canon to discern true a • d divine books from false and conterfeite books or written by the spirit of man, what is this like to that bl 〈…〉 phemous authority which the Popish Church challengeth? that she gave authority to the scriptures and might as well have received the Gospel of Bartholomewe as of Matthew, of Thomas as of John &c: whereby it followeth, that by the like power she may now reject the Gospel's of Matthew and John, and receive the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas.

Where I said, the popish Bishops durst not abide the conference at Westminster, first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase, because I said it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde, as one that care not what I say. In deed I 〈…〉 de accompt of the judgment of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which would not take my words as though I 〈…〉 nt that all the whole world was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church: but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all y ^e world 〈…〉 ght have knowledge of it.

Secondly he calleth it a mock conference, in come 〈…〉 rison of the council of Trent, yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken, but such as was well liked of by the Papists 〈…〉 m selves, until they saw their cause could carry no 〈…〉 dite.

He chargeth us for refusing to come to the council 〈◊〉 Trent, being so solemnly & honorably invited, with 〈…〉 h safeconductes &c. To your safeconductes I aun 〈…〉 ere briefly the council of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m forever on your behalfes. And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered, I say it was to no purpose, in such a 〈…〉 cke council, where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll party that is accused of heresy, shall be the only 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all things passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples, laws, equity and reason.

Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole country, I will not quarrel at your phrase, 〈…〉 t I marvel what great revenues he hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that he receiveth no exhibition as you say from any body.

But now to the fourefolde offer: wherein first you say, that the council of Trent compted us subjects 〈◊〉 much as we compte you the subjects of England. • e compt you as you show yourselves to be, errant • aytors to England and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me, our sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth: as for 〈…〉 e conuenticle of Trent, we owe no more subjection 〈…〉 to it, them to the city of Louaine.

The first offer is, that we must proeure a safecon 〈…〉 uct for you from the Court in such form as the coun 〈…〉 ll gave us, and some of you will come over and join with us in any conference that shall be prescribed, according to the common laws of a conference, 〈◊〉 there you refer me to your 19. and 1. demand, wheret • I have made answer already. But as concerning yo 〈…〉 request, that we should procure safeconduct for yo 〈…〉 it is altogether vnresonable, because you are not on 〈…〉 heretics, but also rebels, conspirators and traitors, to whom no wise state will grant safeco • ducte.

Your seconde offer, is that I should join wi 〈…〉 you upon Collatio Carthaginensis, touching whic 〈…〉 you have mine answer in my Retentiue against yo 〈…〉 moriues.

Your slanderous and shameless complaint, of o 〈…〉 Bishops and commissioners oppressing papists with heavy y • ons, & butchers axes, y ^e whole world (if you w 〈…〉 give me leave to speak so) may know to be false. Their gretest severity is lenity, if it be compared with popish tyrannic, practiced by your Bishops and bu • ning butchers in Queen Mary's time.

Your third offer is, that I should send you so •• of my fellows or scholars (it is well you require n 〈…〉 me to come myself) which shall need no other sa •• conduct, but their quiet and modest behavior: as the example of some • ugitiues hath proved, all satisfied by your conference, and seeing and hearing your daily reading and examination of the scirptures: I answer, if you could procure as good a safecondicte 〈◊〉 Sygismond the Emperor gave to John Hus & Hiero • of Prague, I durst not adventure to send them (if h 〈…〉 any fellows or scholars whom I might send) into the hands of Papists and traitors: much less dare I send or exhort any, to go upon your credit without safeconduct.

Your fourth offer is, to answer such scriptures as I have alleged in both my books, in the next chapter, whereto you shall by the grace of God receive a reply without any long delay.

Your translation of the bible that you make some 〈…〉 omise of, when it cometh forth, we shall con 〈…〉 er of it. But where you say, We have served our 〈…〉 ntrie with the old Testament of the late obstinate Jews 〈…〉 welling, dividing, and reading, it being it self but one verse 〈◊〉 the whole Psalter, and ech other particular book, and only 〈…〉 sonantes, and to be rcade according to the tradition of the 〈…〉 thfull, which tradition you know by your authentical tran 〈…〉 tions, and not of the incredulous and per • idious &c. you 〈…〉 rite both like an ignorant asse, and like an impudent 〈…〉 asphemer. For first where you say, y ^e vowelling, diui 〈…〉 ng, & reading is of y ^e late obstinate Jews: you declare 〈…〉 neither you have seen nor read the ancient common 〈…〉 ries of the Jews that are extant, in which this vowel 〈…〉 ng, dividing, and reading is contained, nor once have 〈…〉 ard of the most ancient travel of the Mazorites 〈…〉 hich sone after the dispertion of the Jews, with won 〈…〉 rful care and diligence, almost unto superstition have 〈…〉 gistred the vowelling, dividing, and reading, as it 〈…〉 as then received, even from the Patriarchs and Pro 〈…〉 etes, of every verse and word in the old Testa 〈…〉 ent: in so much that if any letter or point by the 〈…〉 ult of the writer in the copies which they used were 〈…〉 ch as might easily be corrected by the Grammar, yet 〈…〉 ey durst not amend it, but have even so commended 〈◊〉 unto us, as if there be any learned in that tongue, of • hich you make some brags, they are able to make report unto you. Again, what a monstuous thing is this, y ^t there should be but one verse or sentence in the whole Psalter, and in ech book without my distinction or division: you might as well say there is but one word in every book. Again where you say there be only 〈…〉 onsonantes, although they that be exercised in the He • rewe tongue, and in the grammar thereof, can read • ithout the vowelling pointes, yet they cannot always • aue certainty, seeing some words with diverse points, 〈…〉 oe not only signify diverse things, but some 〈…〉 imes also contrary things. Howe then could eve 〈…〉 ie godly man, exercise him self day and night in the 〈…〉 tudie of God's law, according to his commandment, when it were not possible for one among an hundredth, to read it without points and distinctions of sentences. Our savior Christ in affirming that not so much 〈◊〉 one jot or point of the law shall perish, doth sufficiently declare, that the law of God had vowelling & dividing pointes as well as letters consonants. As for your authentical translations you prate of, we know that in m • ny places, they err not only by missing the vowell 〈…〉 , but also by perverting the consonantes. And if it b 〈…〉 so as you threaten in the seconde part of this Chapter, that one of your side shall shortly set forth a book, to show to the world, that the Hebrew and Greek • texts, in nothing make for us, against you, and in very many things make for you against us, much mo • e plainly then your vulgar latin text, we have not served our country amiss in translation of the old Testament according to the Hebrew which maketh more for you then your own vulgar latin, & so much as you say against us.

But now to all your four offers, I will oppose one more reasonable, more easy, more indifferent, which without danger, without suite, without fraud, me thinks in equity, you may not refuse. And that is such as I made concerning mine answers unto your popish treatises, prefixed before my Retentiue against your motives, that if you will conclude any controversy of religion that is between us, in the strict form of Logical arguments (which is the best trial of truth in matters of doubt) I will answer you as briefly, and either show plainly the inconsequens of your argument, or else by sufficient authority or conclusion of syllogism, avouch y ^e contradiction of your major or minor, or both, if they both happen to be false. In the mean time if you had rather be respondent then opponent, there is a littell treatise called Syllogisticon that hath been set forth by Master Fox almost twenty years ago against transubstantiation and the carnal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament of his supper, if your stomak serve you, you may endeavor 〈…〉 our self to answer that challenge.