Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

The second part.

The first text cited Ar. 86. Every man is a liar, • herfore the whole Church militant consisting of men, • hich are all liars, may err altogether.

Against this, Bristow asketh: Why I do not say 〈…〉 e Church triumphant: And demandeth whether 〈…〉 at also do not consist of men: I answer, the scrip 〈…〉 re Psalm. 116. speaketh of men living in this world, 〈…〉 d such as are mere men, lest he should cavil at our 〈…〉 uiour Christ, which is a man, and yet not contained in this general rule. As for the members of the triumphant Church, whether they may properly be c • lled men, I will not dispute, but we speak as the scripture speaketh of men on earth, and the Church o 〈…〉 • arth. And therefore although it be true, that some • men by the gift of God are veraces, true: yet nere which may not err. And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather, Purg. 451. God only is not true, if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot err, is not avoided by saying the Apostles cannot err. For undoubtedly the Apostles did err. That their preachings and writings were not erroneous, it was because they were not theirs, but the enditing of the holy ghost by them. But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope, it is manifest by this, that he hath spoken contrary to the spirit of God in the Scriptures, not only in matters of controversy between him and us, but also in heresies condemned by both partes.

The 2. text is Ar. 88. where I say: The true & only Church of God, hath no such privilege granted, but that she may be deceived in some things: for her knowledge is imperfect, & her prophesying is imperfect. Bristow replieth, that S. Paul in that speech includeth him self: Our knowledge & our prophesying &c. is imperfect, whether we speak or write. And saith, that he troweth I will not say, that S. Paul might be deceived in his writings & epistles: & no more may the Church be, I answer if S. Paul had proceeded further in prophesying, then according to such knowledge as he had by revelation, & argumentation out of y ^e scriptures, he might have erred. That he did not err in his writings, it was not because it was impossible for him to err, but because he did write nothing but that he had, either by revelation of Jesus Christ's spirit, or by argumentation out of the holy scriptures. And therefore, except y ^e church have such warrant, as the Apostles & elders had by revelation & the Scriptures Act. 15. she cannot truly say, It hath been thought good to y ^e holy ghost & us.

The 3. text is Ar. 88. where I say. It is true that S. 〈…〉 gustine saith, even the whole Church is taught to say 〈…〉 ry day, Forgive us our trespasses. But why so (saith 〈…〉 stow) because the whole Church doth err in her de 〈…〉 minations every day? It were ridiculous so to say. 〈…〉 t Augustine speak for us both.

The whole 〈…〉 urch for the ignorance of her members must say, for 〈…〉 ue us our debts: but the whole Church need not say 〈◊〉 , except she may be deceived through the ignorance of 〈…〉 r members: therefore the whole church may be decei 〈…〉 d, Apostles and all: which did not err in their writings 〈…〉 d determinations, because it was impossible for them 〈◊〉 to do, whatsoever they had written or determined, 〈…〉 t because in their writings and determinations, they 〈…〉 ere directed by such revelation, as they had according 〈◊〉 the holy scriptures.

The 4 text is, that the whole synagogue did err, but 〈…〉 ot the Church of Christ, and that but in a fact, not in 〈…〉 octrine, nor the whole synagogue, but a piece only. 〈…〉 hich was the example of David carrying the Ark of 〈…〉 od upon a new Chariot, which should have ben carry 〈…〉 d upon men's shoulders. 1. Chron. 13. So that there be no 〈…〉 sse, then three walls saith Bristow between y ^e Church 〈…〉 nd your shot. But by the grace of God, I will show 〈…〉 hat they are all but paper walls, that are erected against the truth of • od, to bind it to the persons or places of men. First (saith Bristow) it was the synagogue, and not the Church of Christ. Why Bristow, was not the Church of Christ, before Christ came into the flesh? at least remember that S. Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. Al our fathers were baptized and communicated w ^t the body and blood of Christ, or else find us some other way of salvation, then in the body of Christ, whose member whosoever is not, is sure of damnation: or say that the Jews being the members of the body of Christ, were not the Church of Christ.

The second wall, that this was a fact, and no doctrine, is soon blown down if we do consider, that the fact had never been attempted, but that it was though 〈…〉 lawful and Godly, which was an error in doctrine. The third wall is, That the whole synagogue erred no • For he did not consult with the priest, saith Bristow, w 〈…〉 with his Tribunes, Centurions & nobles, but only w 〈…〉 the Lord's temporal, & hereupon he noteth my be 〈…〉 lie blindness: but much rather may I note his m 〈…〉 strous and more then beastly impudence, where the 〈◊〉 according to his own vulgar translation addeth to th 〈…〉 whom he nameth,

These (saith Bristow) were as you would say the hedge priests. Very well, ergo all the head priests were present. For otherwise howe could it be a perfect congregation of Israel, where there wanted the principal members of the priests, and Levites, for their tribe and degree? And when he saith, let us send to the rest of our brethren, and those which he sent to of that degree were none, but 〈◊〉 it were hedge Priests, as Bristow affirmeth, who will doubt but the chief Priests were present, except he think they were not brethren unto the rest? But three months after, saith Bristow, having found out his error, he gathered not only all Israel •• d Jerusalem, but also the sons of Aaron, Sadoc and Abiathar, &c. 〈◊〉 though they were no part of Israel. But these (saith Bristow) he gathered as two Bishops, and six other, as it were Archdeacons, and said unto them: The words that Bristow taketh hold off in his vulgar translation, are that these principal priests and Leu • tes were not present, which as before it is proved 〈…〉 e, so are they not in y ^e Hebrew text LO ATT • M, No • 〈…〉 the verb is understood, which is in y ^e sentence before: 〈…〉 t omitted, which now they were commanded to do, 〈…〉 t is, to carry the Ark: So the sense is, because you did 〈◊〉 carry it, and not, because you were absent. For beside 〈…〉 t hath been said before, of all the chief Priests in 〈…〉 nerall, howe could it be said, that Aminadab one of 〈◊〉 six was absent, when the Ark was first brought 〈…〉 t of his house, who if he had not ben deceived, should 〈…〉 ue told the king of his error before?

The 5. text is Ar. 86. where I say, the true and only 〈…〉 rch of Christ can never be void of God's spirit, and ye • she • 〈…〉 y err from the truth, and be deceived in some thing • : • uen 〈…〉 there is no true Christian man that is void of God's spirit, ye • 〈…〉 y every true Christian err, &c. This my sophism (saith 〈…〉 istowe) consisteth in speaking confusely of God's spi 〈…〉 e, as though the gift of it were one, in y ^e whole church, 〈…〉 d in every particular true Christian man. But I say, 〈…〉 t, clean contrary to that he chargeth me, I distin 〈…〉 ish of the gift of the spirit of God concerning adop 〈…〉 n, that is in everyone of the faithful, by which he 〈◊〉 privileged from erring unto damnation: and the 〈…〉 rite of truth which is not given in such measure ei 〈…〉 r to the whole Church, or to every member, but that 〈…〉 ey may err in some things, though not finally in 〈…〉 atters necessary unto salvation. As for the promise, 〈…〉 ohn 14. ver. 16. of the comforter even the spirit of truth, to remain with us forever, and to lead us into all truth: If the later be not restored to the Apostles, howe can Bristow prove, that it must needs be understood of 〈…〉 e whole Church only, and not of every member s 〈…〉 g our savior Christ, John 17. prayeth not only for 〈…〉 is Apostles, but for all and everyone that should be 〈…〉 eeue in him, through their preaching, that they might 〈…〉 e sanctified in the truth, which is the word of God. • nd evē in y ^e very place cited, John 14. ver. 15. promiseth 〈…〉 he comforter the spirit of truth, to everyone 〈…〉 hat believeth in him. And as he sent his spirit to lead 〈…〉 he Apostles into all truth, so his Apostles failed not to deliver that truth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subject to forgetful 〈…〉 and corruption then the other. Wherefore the Church 〈◊〉 called the pillar of truth. 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil 〈…〉 upon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles. Ep 〈…〉 2. which had the whole truth of the gospel revealed 〈◊〉 to them, not because the Church should have the spirit of truth, to reveal any truth unto her, which w 〈…〉 not revealed to the Apostles, and by them as well i • their writings, as in their preachings. So that the sa 〈…〉 gift of the spirit being in the whole Church, that is i • every member, and distinct from the gift of the spirit in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing, the argument by me set down, is sound & no sophism at all.

2 That the Church may be divorced.

I never said that y ^e true & Catholic church of Christ may be divorced from him, but the visible & particular Church of some place, & time, as the prophet Isaiah complaineth that the church of Jerusalem, by idolatry & superstition, had separated her self from Christ, & was refused of him, Esa. 1. How is y ^e faithful city become an ha • lot? &c. And so may y ^e prophet say to y ^e church of Rome. Brist. asketh, whether y ^e prophet do say so to Rome? yea • erely. For y ^e idolatry of Rome is nothing less, in this time then it was in his time of Ierusalē. But I am too too ignorant (Bristow saith) in the scriptures, if I know not herein the difference between the synagogue of the Jews and the Church of Christ, to wit that the synagogue with her Ierusalē might & should be divorced, but the Church of Christ with her Jerusalem (which is Rome saith Bristow) if you have any sight in the Acts of the Apostles should never, nor never might be divorced, &c. If mine ignorance be so great, why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me, y ^t the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation, consisting of the Gentiles, may not as well be separated from him, as the Church of Christ before his incarnation, consisting of the Jews? As for 〈◊〉 divorcement you imagine of all the whole on the 〈…〉 th, it never was ne shall be. Again, that Rome is the 〈…〉 usalem of the Church of Christ, where find you in 〈…〉 c Acts of the Apostles, which have so good sight in 〈…〉 em? I guess this is your argument: S. Luke beginneth 〈…〉 s stor • e at Jerusalem, and endeth at Rome: ergo Rome the Jerusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you 〈…〉 n prove the consequence of this argument, I will say as 〈…〉 ou say. In the mean time, I say there is small likely 〈…〉 od that Rome should be the Jerusalem of the Church 〈…〉 f Christ, seeing Peter being at Rome, is not once menti 〈…〉 ed in all the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any other 〈…〉 ooke of holy scripture. But if you had as great sight 〈◊〉 the Epistle to the Galatians, as you imagine your 〈…〉 lfe to have in the Acts of the Apostles, there might 〈…〉 ou learn Cap. 4. that the Jerusalem of the Church of • hrist, is not Rome on earth, but Jerusalem which is a 〈…〉 o • e, which is the mother of us all. As for the rejecting 〈…〉 f the Jews, and calling of the Gentiles even until the 〈…〉 lnesse and the restoring of y ^e Jews, of which you pro 〈…〉 hecy without the book, y ^t they shall be all Christened in 〈…〉 e end of the world, are matters impertinēt, to this que 〈…〉 tion of the visible Churches divorcement.

3 That even the Church of Christ should prepare the way 〈…〉 o Antichrist.

This, saith Bristow, is a strange imagination of him and his fellows, It is the total sum of all their new divinity, yet no warrant at all they have for it out of the scripture.

But I pray you Bristow, whoever said, that the Church of Christ prepared the way to Antichrist? I said Ar. 35. Manie abuses entered into y ^e Church of Christ immediately after y ^e Apostles time: which y ^e devil planted as a preparative for antichrist. Do I not here plainly say y ^e devil planted them as a preparative? Again Ar. 38. I said, The scripture telleth us that the mystery of iniquity preparing for the general defection, and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in S. Paul's tim 〈…〉 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth, that, general, is my wor • and not saint Paul's: I confess, but it is S. Paul's m 〈…〉 ning, which speaketh not of a small or particular, but 〈◊〉 that great and general defection, which in other pa 〈…〉 of scripture is foreshowed to be from Christ unto Antichrist. Apoc. 13. & 17. and yet not so general, but th 〈…〉 Christ shall have his Church still upon earth. Secondl • he demandeth whether the scripture tell me, that it wr • ug • in the Church of Christ: and answereth himself, no word • so. 〈◊〉 wrought in the persecutors &c. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so? Is open persecution a myste • i • of iniquity? You say better in the seducers, and where began the seducers, but in the visible Church, although they be no members of the true and Catholic Church • That our heresy is the last, or next the last before the revelation, before you go about to show, as you promise, you must prove it to be an heresy, otherwise then the religion of Christ, was or the Infidels, Jews, & Gentile • , called an heresy.

I never said so, but after diverse authorities and re • sons brought to show, howe the world accounteth of the Church: I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in th • sight of God and his sancts, is most glorious and honorable, so in the sight of the world it hath always been most base and contemptible. To the scriptures I allege 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 . Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the cross, and Christ crucified thereon, which are all the glory of the Church, are condemned of the world, Bristow saith, that may be, and yet the Church not be in their sight a contemptible company, no more then the old Romans and Turks are to us, though we contemn their religion. I answer, I speak of the contempt of the Church, & not of the persons of men, which often times are great Emperors and princes of the world.

To the place Matth. 10. You shall be hated of all men 〈…〉 r my names sake. Bristow inferreth the company that 〈◊〉 hated is not always contemptible. I confess, neither • id I bring that text, but to show the perpetual hatred • f the world against the Church. But Cyprian writeth, • hat Decius was more patient to hear that an Emperor 〈…〉 as set up against him, then that another priest should • e ordained at Rome in the place of Fabianus. This saith • ristowe, was not contempt, but of fear. Although I • eny not, but tyrants fear the church of God, more then • hey have cause in respect of their earthly kingdom: 〈…〉 t it followeth not, but they do also contemn it, and 〈…〉 ink their power greater and their glory superior vnt • it. And in the example of Decius, his indignation was • he greater, because the base and contemptible compa • y of the Church, as he esteemed them, durst choose an • there Bishop, after he had slain Fabianus, purposing to • estroy the Church utterly.

That I allege, 1. Cor. 1. Not many wise men, &c. He •• yeth it was so in the beginning of the Church, but not • lwayes. And so I do blindly allege the text against • y self: Because afterward the text saith, the wise them •• lues and the strong were confounded, that is to say converted. 〈◊〉 deed, if confusion and conversion be all one, it is •• mewhat that you say: but howe will the text bear, •• at (beside y ^e improprietie of the speech) that God hath 〈…〉 osen the foolish things of the world, that he might • onuert the wisemen; and the weak, that he might con • ert the strong? Last of all God hath chosen the inno 〈…〉 e and contemptible things of the world, and those • hings which are not, that he might destroy those things • at are. As you say, to confound, is to convert, so you here best say, to destroy is to save, or else you cannot •• rooue the multitude of wise, noble, and honorable • ersons, that God hath chosen to be greater, then those • hat are rejected. As for the texts of Isaiah 60. & 10. • ited by you and me, speak of the spiritual glory of the Church, not delivering her from the contemptof the world, where and among whom she is a stranger.

Concerning the inuisiblenes of the church, Bristow saith, I allege so as no sober man would: so that • elike he will drive me to purge myself of drunkenness, as the Apostles were fain • to do • . Act 2. But what say 〈◊〉 not sounding of sobr •• tie? One while, that the universal church of Christ, is not seen at all of men, because it is in heaven, Gal. 4. And here he asketh, if every member be not in heavē, as the Apostle faith, Our conversation is in heaven: Phil. 3. and Peter the Apostle w •• seen of all men. I answer, although men be seen i • earth, yet their conversation which is in heaven, is not seen; nor they them selves as they are in heaven with Christ which is our life, Col. 3. ver. 3. &c. So much mo •• the universal church, being a spiritual conjunction o • all the members unto Christ their head in heaven, is no • to be seen with bodily eyes upon earth.

But another while I say, Ar. 80. it sufficeth, that the church be known to Christ the head; as he saith, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them; and to them y ^• be the members of the same body. Here Bristow quarelleth w ^t me: if your text import, that it sufficeth to be known to the head, why do you iumble in the members afterward? whether he be sober that understand •• not a copulative proposition, let wise men judge. And yet the text proveth as well the sheep to know one another by hearing Christ's voice, as Christ knowi • g them by his divine election and providence. But B •• stowe so great a crafts man of good conclusions, d 〈…〉 death this consequence: Christ knoweth his sheep, 〈◊〉 the church (forsooth) may be invisible: and so he may, for it is of his own making, and not of mine. I had no more to prove, but that Christ should not be head of an unknown body, because he knoweth his own body and the members know one another, although neither he nor they be known unto the world.

Yet another while I allege, that though not always • , 〈…〉 et at one certain time, it should become invisible, at 〈…〉 he coming of Antichrist, or rather when Antichrist 〈…〉 ath prevailed, I speak of the church in this world, & of the inuisiblenes unto the wicked world, what scrip • ures have you for that? saith Bristow, Ar. 27. & 77. It • as propheci • d, that the church should fly into the Wilderness. The defection which saint Paul speaketh of, concerning the churches inuisiblenesse, I have pro • ed, howe substantial the argument is before, Cap. 7. Par. 4. But now Bristow opposeth scriptures to prove, • hat the church in y ^e time of Antichrist should be both • isible and universal; For there shall be preaching all the time of persecution by the true witnesses, Apoc. 11. even 1260. days, or 42. months, which cometh to three years and an half. But after they be slain and • lie unburied 3. days and an half; which is also the time of Antichrists tyranny, and the greatest ruffe of • is cruelty, who shall preach then openly against Antichrist? for of such preaching we speak. But lest you should imagine these days to be common days of 24. hours long, as you seem to do of the 1260. days &c. you may see, that the inhabitants of the earth, could not have time to publish their death and send gifts, &c. in so short a season as three days and an half of natural days account. But you say the preaching shall be as general as the persecution. That cannot be of so small 2 number of witnesses. For that you quote Apoc. 14. pertaineth to the time of Antichrists consumption toward the end, and his final destruction, for immediately followeth the Angel, showing the fall of Babylon.

Last of all, you object Apoc. 20. that the persecutors being in number as the sand of the Sea, shall over the wide world compass the campe of the faithful, & the city of God: therefore the church shall be at the same time universal, & super latitudinem terrae. I doubt not but the church shall be universal in her greatest straits, & dispersed over all the earth, when she is fled into the wilderness, which signifieth her desolate condition, & not her place wout the world but neither of both is proved by y ^e text before alleged. For it followeth not, although th • enemies with their multitude shall come up, and as it were cover the face of the earth, and so compass the campe of the faithful, and the beloved city: that therefore the campe of the faithful and the beloved city is as large and as many in number, as their enemies: when experience proveth the contrary, at this day, if all that be baptized were true Christians, and the Church of Christ, yet are they nothing in multitude, in comparison of the Turks and Infidels: wherefor for anything that is here shown, the Church should be invisible to the world, when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyranny.

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

Being demanded, Ar. 35. what year the religion of Papists came in and prevailed: I answer, that although many abuses and corruptions entered into the Church of Christ, immediately after the Apostles time, which the devil planted, as a preparative for his eldest son Antichrist: yet we may well say, that the religion of Papists came in and prevailed, that year in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation, which was 607. when Boniface the third, for a great sum of money, obtained of Phocas the murthering Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted▪ the head of all the church: which devilish heresy increased until the year of our Lord 1414. when the council of Constance decreede that • acrilege of the communion in one kind.

Likewise, Ar. 16. After I had shown the persecution of the true Church until Constantine, and soon after by the Arians, then the overthrow of the Empire by the barbarous, heretical & idolatrous nations: I conclude, But when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the West, seduced the world with most detestable heresi • , then was fulfilled that which was revealed to S. John, Apo • . 12. The woman clothed with the Sun, which is the Church, was so persecuted by the dragon, that she fled into the Wilderness, there t • remain a long season.

These sayings of mine, Bristow rehearseth, cut off in the wast, as though I referred the dragons persecution, only to the Pope: which I say plainly began before, but was most perfect concerning the apostasy, in the reign of the popish Antichrist. Again, he saith, I do apply this prophesy only, because of the Popes primacy • which is false, but because of his false doctrine and heresy also. For that he saith the Popes primacy is a truth of the Gospel, and practiced before Boniface, • he referreth us for proof to Saunders tray terous book of Monarchy, and I for answer, will send the reader • o my overthrow of his Romish Rock. The suppo • ed contradictions I refer always to the proper place, Cap. 11.

But, O sir, where is the Scripture that you promised • o bring so clear? &c. saith Bristow. Sir my promise was, for articles of doctrine in controversy between us, • nd not for the fulfilling of every prophesy, which the • ffect must better expound oftentimes, then the words.

But furthermore (saith Bristow) you make show of a • ext which is against you, and use most detestable fall • ification, saying the Church should remain in the wilderness a long season, but the text is clean contra • y, a very short season. Say you so, Bristow? where have you these words in the text, a very short season? But you have 1260. days, and a time, two times, and • alfe a time. And can you tell us the length of these • imes or of the days either? In the weeks of Daniel, • nto whom you refer the exposition of the two times (for you have not two times, but times indefinitely in the revelation) the prophetical days are as long as common years. As for the time, two times, and half a • ime, who is able to define the length of them?

But by Scripture you will prove a very short season, and first you iumble together, two diverse prophecies, of Apoc. 12. & 20. of the loosing of Satan for a short season. Why man? short and long be Relatiues. The time of Satan's loosing is short, in comparison, either of the long time that he was bound, or of the long and eternal time in which he shall remain in perpetual bondage. For though Antichrist reigned in open revelation, and not in mystery of iniquity only, by the space of 807. years, more or less, and yet be not utterly consumed, but yet in his consumption: Nevertheless, for a whole 1000. years after Christ, the gospel of salvation continued in the church, though much defiled with superstition, yet sound in the only foundation, Christ, openly testified by sundry public teachers, until Sylvester the seconde, Anno Domini 1000. by the devil him self (as even the Popish stories confess) was put in possession of the See of Rome, & then was the church driven into greater straightes then ever before; the doctrine of salvation being turned into idolatry and blasphemy.

But it is monstrous, that Bristow expoundeth the consummation of the 1000. years, by the gospel, speaking of the consummation of the world, Matt. 24. Mark 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, with the ende of the world. And where he citeth Matth. 42. sta • i •• post, straight after the persecution of those short days, considering that from the destruction of Jerusalem unto the ende of the world, so many hundredth years are passed, he might learn at the lest, not to measure the length and shortness of times, by men's reckonings, but to remember, that with the Lord a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years, 2. Pet. 3.

His other patching of Centones, like Valentinians, in steed of conserence of scripture, because they consist of his only assertion, without reason or authority, I need not to confute. As that the daily sacrifice, which Daniel prophecieth, should be taken away by the death of Christ, Daniel the 9. &. 12. he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the Mass; By the which • aint Paul prophesied, that we should announce our • ordes death: as though Saint Paul spake that of a sa • rifice, and not express of eating that bread and drin • ing that cup of the Lord.

Like wise, speaking of the abomination of desolati • n, he saith: Daniel agreeth with the gospel & the • pocalips, where he saith: Daniel 12. From the time • hen the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the ab • omination set up for desolation, days 1290. Blessed is 〈…〉 e that expecteth and cometh to days 1335. What agreement is between 1260. days and these two num • ers? beside that Daniel 9. the Angel showeth, that • he abhominatian of desolation in the temple, and the • esolation shall continue even to the consummation • nd end.

Last of all, he will prove, that the season is short, • ut of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians, that they be not troubled as though the • ay of the Lord were then instant, for Antichrist must • irst be revealed. And then in deed (saith Bristow) • he day of our Lord is instant. And howe know you • hat? For our Lord Jesus Christ (saith he) will kill • im with the breath of his mouth. What immediately, Bristow? so soon as he is shown openly, will you • llowe him no time, to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signs and wonders? shall he be killed before he have practiced all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish, to whom God shall • ende the efficacy of error, that they may believe lying, that all they which have not believed the truth, but had pleasure in vnrighteo • snesse may be condemned? This will ask a longer time, then three years and an half of the Suns reuolution, or 42. months of the Moons circuit. It is not one man's person or age that can suffice to deceive all them that have not believed the truth.

His last conceit, in distinguishing the apostasy from the revealing of Antichrist, by the token given of y ^e abolishing of the Roman Empire, which should come to pass before the revealing, but not before the apostasy, because it is his own drowsy imagination, without ground, I will not vouchsafe to confute, especially, seeing the Apostle ver. 3. joineth the Apostasy and the revelation immediately together.

Whether Antichrist or the Apostasy agree to the Protestants.

In this title is nothing but surmises, whereof he him self is uncertain: but for one place in the Apocalypse he would say, under the churches leave, that our heresy is the apostasy, the place is in the first V • of the Locusts, and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9. where some things agree, and other things agree not, &c. But let him look on the commentary of Bullinger, Alphonsus, Chytraeus, John Bale, and other, and he shall find a nearer agreement of that kingdom to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts, the Monks and Friars, then he can imagine unto us. I pass over the abomination of desolation, which one while he maketh Luther's and Calvin's inventions; another while, the kings arms set in place of the moste sweet and glorious rood; yea, the image of a vile grassehopper in a church that is well known, which is an vmbraticall desolation, as the images of Jupiter and the Emperors were in the temple &c. matters to be laughed at, although perhaps he lie, because he dare not name the church, or else is afraid it should be refourmed, if any vain painter hath set up such images. And yet what more common in Poperye, then not only to paint, but also to carue the images of kings, and noble men's arms, even upon the roodeloft of the Churches, where they were patrons? At last he challengeth me to join with him upon his last demand, which is apostasy, unto which I have answered long since. Finally, he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist, by the commentary which the scripture it self makes.

And they are seven kings: whereof five are fallen, which are the persecu • ing kings, before the time when this was spoken. What then? One is presently, who therefore is meant of the Roman Emperors, and all other kings persecuting with them. The other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must remain a short season, who evidently is Antichrist in proper person.

This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope: Nay (saith Bristow) for he must remain not a long season, as the five, and as the one, but a short season, only three years and an half. But where have you the length of his continuance compared with the five and one? All the time of the Churches persecution is but short, in comparison of the infinite comfort, that she shall have everlastingly, though it be long in the judgment of flesh and blood, measuring the time by the brevity of man's life, and the seasons of this world, as Bristow doeth the three years and an half. But this is worthy to be noted, that he expoundeth the sixth king for the whole state of Roman Emperors, and other persecuting kings, as he doeth the five kings that were past, and yet against all reason and analogy, would have the seventh (which is antichrist) to be one singular man, so to avoid, that the whole rabble of Popes cannot be antichrist. Now followeth the exposition of the ten horns, which are ten kings, which have not yet taken kingdom, but they shall take power as kings even in one hour with the beast, that is, together with Antichrist (saith he) to serve him as his feed knights. I marvel whether he will not expound the hour in this place for the 24. part of a natural day. For otherwise we see by histories, that the advancement of the Pope, was the decay of the Empire in the West, and with him arose a multitude of kings in every province, which before were subject to one Emperor.

And so you see evidently (saith Bristow) by these seven hills, thus expounded, that the woman which sitteth upon them, is not so little a one, as you do make her, but that she is Mundus impiorum: the whole world of wicked men. But where do we see this evident exposition of the seven hills? we have seen the exposition of the seven heads, to be seven kings, and also seven hills: but we see no exposition of the hills, who must needs be taken in their proper sense, because they are the exposition of anothe • figurative speech, namely seven heads. But the woman (you say,) is no little one, which sitteth on the seven hills, but the world of wicked men. Let the holy ghost I pray you expound the woman, as well as the heads of her beast.

This is a clear exposition of the whore of Babylon, the woman; and as clear a description of the city of Rome, which in that time, had the kingdom over the kings of the earth, and is the city built upon seven hills, before expounded to be one of the significations of the seven heads, a persecutor of the saints under the Emperors, and a poisone • and persecutor of the Church under the Popes. And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition, which I will prove by this reason. The whore of Babylon is a great city, having dominion over y ^e kings of the earth: but the whole world of wicked men is not a great city, having dominion over the kings of the earth: therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men. Again, The whore of Babylon is a city situated upon seven hills: The whole world of wicked men is not a city situate upon seven hills: therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men.

The third part.

I said. Purg. 44 • . It is no good logic, to conclude negatively of any one place or book of scripture: yet • ontrarie to mine own rule, (Bristow saith) I conclude • egatiuely out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth • one other comfort, to moderate the mourning of the faithful, but only the quiet rest of them that are asleep in the Lord, and y ^e hope of their glorious resurrec • ion: ergo there is no comfort in praying for their souls. 〈◊〉 answer, mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen, which citeth that place to prove, that as immoderate mourning, is against the hope of the resurrectiō, so being joined with prayers and alms, it hath the lively hope of life in those that sleep in peace. This advantage Bristow hath, by rending and tearing mine arguments from the body of my book, that it cannot be perceived, upon what ground I use them. Nevertheless having often before in that answer to Allen, protested that he could bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the dead, this argument is to be referred to the same conclusion, after this manner. If in most convenient place, the holy ghost • oyne not prayer and alms to moderate mourning for the departed, then doeth he join them in no place: but in most convenient place he joineth not: ergo in no place. The major is proved by the wisdom of God's spirit, which always choseth that which is most convenient: the minor is manifest and granted: ergo the conclusion is true. But Bristow asketh me if I preaching to moderate the mourning of the faithful, use none other comfort then these two? I answer him concerning the state of the departed, I use none other proper places of comfort but these two, the hope of their glorious resurrection, & their quiet rest in the mean time. But S. Paul, saith Bristow, speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death, although he name them that are asleep in the Lord. If they sleep in the Lord, they are not only at rest, but in happiness. Can you interpret to sleep in the Lord, to be in hellish torments, such as you fain your purgatory pains to be? Are they not blessed which die in y ^e Lord? The Prophet Isaiah saith, cap. 57. of y ^e righteous after their death, y ^t there shall be peace, they shall rest in their beds: Ergo, they that sleep in the Lord, enjoy a quiet rest.

The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul reherseth what he received and delivered concerning the sacrament, but oblation for the dead, he rehearseth no • ergo he neither received nor delivered it. So you make (saith Bristow) as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he saith afterward, of setting other things in order. I answer, that objection is avoided in the same place immediately after, Pur. 362. & therefore I will not here repeat the answer. And that it is not of one place negatively, you yourself here confess, that I deny it to be written by any of the Evangelists which entreat of the sacrament. But you are not ashamed to affirm, that the Apostle intended no more in that place, but to correct the sin of unworthy receiving, upon coulot of a place of Augustine,

Doth Augustine say, or can any man prove out of his saying, that he meant, that S. Paul intended no more, but to correct the sin of the unworthy receiving? But admit it were so, how could he better correct that sin, then by showing the whole institution, substantial matter and form, ende and use of that sacrament, and so he doth, although ceremonies and external observations about it, he doth not express.

The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer. 19. which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diverse other ordinances concerning the dead, in which was no sacrifice, or prayer for the dead was offered, but that they were so separated from the living, that the priests might have nothing to do with them but in special cases. Bristow saith, I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buried. In • eede so to conclude, were to conclude of one place • egatiuely, but I presuppose my former assertion, that • n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead, no not in those which contain • peciall order for the dead. I add further, that the • riest to whō specially offering of sacrifice pertaineth, • s so separated from the dead, that he is forbidden to • ourne for them, much more to offer sacrifice for thē, • r to pray for them, which cannot be without lamen • ation for their miserable estate &c.

From these particular places, I come to the whole • awe, and conclude negatively thus: All lawful sacri • ices were prescribed by the law: Sacrifice for the dead • as not prescribed by the law: therefore it was no law • ull sacrifice. The answer he saith is by returning it • ppon myself, but in deed he maketh it by denying • he minor: affirming that sacrifice for the dead was pre • cribed under the name of sacrifice for sin. I might • ere reply, out of your own doctrine, that not the • uiltinesse, but the pain of sin is in many to be pur • ed, which have obtained remission of all their sins, • ither by Popes pardon, or priests absolution, or by • ods forgiveness unto the penitent. But I will fol • owe the argument I shown that the form of sacrifice • as such, as could not be offered but of the living or • or the living, because they are commanded in all sa • rifice for sin generally to lay their hand upon the head of the beast to be sacrificed. Hereunto Bristow replieth, that this gross absurdity would follow, that • acrifice for sin could not be offered, but of thē that were present: therefore not for the children, the sick, • or captives, for kings and cities of the world vncircum • ised, and diverse other sortes. I reioygne, that no sacri • ices for sin, but sacrifices of thanksgiving or prospe • ities, could be offered for the absent: and especially for the uncircumcised which could not have remission of sins, before they were engraffed into the people of God, but temporal benefits at the prayers of God's people they might obtain. As for children, sick, captives, &c. they might have remission of sins without sacrifice, which was but the Sacrament thereof, as well in their childhoode, sickness, captivity, when they could not offer according to the law, as in time of desolation and destruction of the Temple, when no sacrifice for sin could be offered by any or for any, but only in the place where the tabernacle or temple was. Wherefore the sacrifice of Judas Machabaeus wheresoever he learned it, hath no warrant i • the law.

The fourth argument, of the whole scripture negatively to conclude, I said it is good logic, after this manner. All true doctrine is taught in the scripture: Purgatory is not taught in the scripture: therefore purgatory is no true doctrine. Bristow denieth both the major and minor. The major I have proved in this chapter, part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture. The minor he would prove to be false by these reasons. First purgatory is taught in the scripture in the Maccabees, Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church, which I also confess, to be the true Church in the third counce 〈…〉 of Carthage, and therefore it is canonical, if any other scripture be Canonical. Supposing that which is false, that the Macabees were canonical, yet is not Purgatory proved by them: prayer for the dead doeth not necessarily draw purgatory after it. The Grecians of longe time have used prayer for the dead, yet they do not receive the doctrine of purgatory. But to prove the Maccabees to be Canonical, he citeth the third council of Carthage, wherein the two books of Maccabees are accounted amongst the rest. But there are also five books of Solomon, whereas we know there are only three, namely the Proverbs, the Canticles and the Preacher. Therefore that canon proveth a manifest error of the council to allow five books of Solomon in steed of three. Let Bristow now bring out the fourth and fifth book of Solomon, and say they be Canonical, if any other scripture be Cano nicall.

The Council of Laodicea more ancient, nameth not the Maccabees. Jerome a Priest of Rome expressly denieth them to be Canonical, Praefatione • n Prouerbia. Ruffinus also, in his exposition of the Creed, affirmeth the Church not to receive them as Canonical: beside so many arguments as the books them selves, do minister which agree, that they were written by the spirit of man, and not by the spirit of God.

To proceed, Bristow saith that purgatory is taught so plainly 1. John 5. that I could not avoid the place but by falling into this horrible absurdity, that we may not pray for all men living. I said in deed we ought not to pray for them that sin unto death, of which John saith: I say not that you should pray for it, or that any man should pray for it, as your vulgar translation hath it: But howe it is proved out of that place, he saith never a word.

Last of all purgatory is taught (saith Bristow) Specially against you sir. John 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently, that Martha and Marie (as the scripture is manifest) did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his body, before the general resurrection. If that be so manifest, what else was it then but the rest of his soul that Martha would have Christ to pray for, when she said thus, unto him: But also now I know that whatsoever things, thou shalt ask of God, God will grant thee? To which purpose also some ancient writers expound the place. Thus far Bristow. But I pray you sir, why do you not tell us the names at least of those ancient writers that so expound the place; Peradventure they were not worth the naming. But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis, to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the coming of Christ, to all times after? as though I said, that they never hoped for their brothers restitution, because they hoped not before Christ came to Bethany, as Allen impudently coniectureth, that Lazatus was restored to his body at their prayers made at his tomb: where there is no mention of any prayers, but of lamentation only. I cannot tell whether I should here require in you more wit or honesty, or else less impudence, & malice. But this was your purpose of cavilling and quarilling, when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plain order as I answered Allen, but in this confuse manner, to bring all my arguments first out of joint, and then to play with them at your pleasure.

2 Ab authoritate scripturae, affirmative First about certain foundations of purgatory, and prayer for the dead.

I said, the word of God overthroweth the popish distinction of sins mortal & Veniall, showing that all sins of their own nature deserve eternal death: and yet all by the mercy of God are pardonable or venial, except the sin against the holy ghost. Bristow saith, that I here grant the doctrine, and yet deny the distinction: which is utterly false: for, that all sins deserve eternal death, and yet be pardonable, it overthroweth the doctrine and distinction both. For the Papists hold, y ^t there are some sins so small, as they deserve not in their own nature eternal damnation, as Bristow immediately hereafter confesseth, where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all things written in the law, extendeth not unto eternal death, saying that hanging on tree, or crucifying is not eternal death, and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21.

Again, everyone, in the saying of the Apostle, is not meant of Christians, but of them, which trust in the law it self &c. Do you not hear plainly the old serpentes voice, Nequaquam moriemini: Tush you shall not die, the curse of God doeth not bring eternal death, you need not be so greatly afraid of it, &c? But where learned you Bristow, that the curse of God, which is upon him that hangeth on tree, is not a visible token, that he deserveth eternal death? Is • ot the text plain against you, Deut. 21.

He is not therefore accursed, be • ause he is hanged on the tree, if he were innocent; but • ecause he hath sinned worthy of death, & so is hanged: 〈◊〉 which respect our savior Christ, being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree, though most innocent in his own person, 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltiness of all our sins, became • ccursed for us, not to discharge us of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternal death (but by your imagi 〈…〉 tion might fall upon an innocent person) but 〈◊〉 redeem us from the curse of the law, which we • aue incurred more then ten thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifold sins and transgressions. And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom. 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e pain of eternal death, I wish every man 〈…〉 at will not be deceived, with the flattering voice 〈…〉 f the Serpent, to give ear to the word of GOD, • here he shall see, that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses, solemnly to be pronounced by the Levites, 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be answered of all the people: • gainst idolaters, cursers of parents, murderers, ince 〈…〉 uous persons, remouers of their neighbors marks, oppressors of the fatherless and strangers, &c. and generally against all transgressors of the Law, unto whom the curse of eternal damnation is threatened • n the same words', that it is to the rest. Mark also, where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse, pro • eth all them that be under the law, to be subject • unto this curse, howe the serpent denying this curse to be the assurance of eternal death, maketh the case of them to be nothing so dangerous, but continuing under the Law, they may avoid eternal death. And where he saith everyone in the Epistle, is not meant of Christians, I would know of him whether the Galatians, to whom saint Paul writeth, were not Christians, but yet seduced by false Apostles, to take upon them the observation of the law, which as it was impossible, so it would bring them from y ^e blessing of Christ, unto the curse of God. That true Christians are discharged of this curse, it is by the only merit of Christ's satisfaction, and not that the sins themselves deserve not everlasting death, though they b •• never so small of their own nature, by the sentence of God's curse, which is a just reward for transgression. Heb. 2.

The two other places that I cite for this purpose: The soul that sinneth shall die: Ezech. 18. and, the reward of sin is death: Rom. 6. he will expound by the saying of saint James Chapt. 1. sin when it is consummate, gendereth death: as though this place of S. James denied sin, not brought into act, to deserve death, because showing that the cause of men's destruction i • in themselves, from the first concupiscence to the last and grosest Acte, he concludeth that those gross acts bring a man into eternal death. Our savior Christ saith, this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather then light. Were it not good Logike and Divinity also, of this place to conclude, that condemnation pertaineth not to men, but where the light offered is refused; or that if Christ had not come, none had ben condemned? John. 3. and likewise, yea much rather, where Christ saith: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should not have had sin? John. 15. Were the obstinate Jews clear of sin by Bristowes judgment, before Christ came? But let us examine his reason. It is sin (saith he) as soon as it is gendred, but it gendereth not death so so one as it is gendred: Therefore some sin there is, that gendereth notd eath. The minor is false, for Saint James, saying that sin consummat gendereth death, doth not say that sin gendereth not death, so soon as it is gendred. But behold yet his impudent wresting of the scripture, he addeth also an exception, unto sin consummat, that not every sin consummat gendereth death, except the matter be of weight accordingly. For else that the lightness of the matter, as an idle word bringeth not death, he sufficiently signifieth in saying, that in a weighty matter, the lightness or imperfection of consent doth it not. These are his words, by which you may see, that without all shame, he imputeth such sayings to Saint James, as he can find never a word in hi • , sound like such 〈◊〉 saying. But this is the manner of heretics, which learn not all truth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture, and to enforce the words thereof, against all equity, to signify and say, whatsoever it pleaseth them. Now that saint James holdeth that every sin deserveth death, I will prove out of his own saying, by this argument: Whosoever is guilty of all the law and commandments, deserveth eternal death: Whosoever offendeth in one, is guilty of all: therefore whosoever offendeth in one, deserveth eternal death. The major I trust you will grant: The minor is Saint James cap. 2. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and offend but in one pointe, he is guilty of all: Then seeing every sin is a breach of God's Law, as Saint John affirmeth, John 3. not only great sins, but also small sins, wherein soever men offend against the law of GOD deserve eternal death, which cannot be avoided but by remission for Christ's sake: for be the sin never so small, it is committed against GOD the author of the Law, who thereby hath forbidden all sins, which reason the Apostle useth, to prove that he which offendeth in one, is guilty of all.

And therefore the texts by me alleged do sufficiently prove, that all sins of their own nature are mortal.

That God remitteth the punishment, with the fault, in respect whereof the punishment is due, I prove by Ezek. 18. & 33. where the Lord promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offenses, that truly turneth unto him, bringing forth the fruits of repentance. Bristow saith, this taketh not place before the day of judgment, whereby it would ensue, that to man could have comfort of his sins forgiven in this life. But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet, Psal, 24. & 78. Lord remember not the sins of my youth: and, Lord remember not our old sins: which are the prayers of the penitent, to obtain forgiveness of their sins: which once obtained, they say, The Lord hath removed our sins from us, as far as the East is from the West. Psalm 102. That may be, saith Bristow, in respect that they be removed from eternal damnation, although they have yet to abide never so much temporal punishment. I will prove that to be false. To be removed as far as the East is from the West, is as far as may be: but not to be removed from temporal punishment, is not to be removed as far as may be: therefore it is not to be removed as far as the Easte is from the West. But the whole Psalm, saith Bristow, is spoken not of the time of our receiving into God's favor by absolution: but of our final restitution, which shall be at the later day. What can be said more absurdly? Thanks are there given to GOD, not only for spiritual benefits, but also for temporal.

The fatherly pytie of GOD towards us as his children which keep his covenant and are mindful of his commandments to do them, is there set forth, which every man that is not blind with heretical malice, will acknowledge to be extended toward us in this life, & therefore also the forgiveness of our sins, and removing of them as far as Heaven from earth, and East from West. As for the argument of singing that Psalm in the popish Church, upon the feast of Christ's ascension, to prove, that it pertaineth altogether to the later day, is as good, as it is true, • hat the words there spoken, are only of our final • estitution at the later day.

To the example of the publican, he answereth • hat there is no more said, but that he went home • ustified more then the Pharisee. yes, there is said, that • ee was justified by forgiveness of sins, which he • onfessed, not trusting in him self that he was • ighteous, although he ascribed all his virtues to the grace of GOD as the Pharisee did: O GOD I thank thee &c. Iumpe with the Papists, Luke 18. But Bristow asketh me, howe I prove that he which is iu • tified may not be in some debt? seeing all the iu • tified children of GOD, are taught to pray, forgive • s our debts. I prove it thus. He that is by GOD • ustified, is accounted for just: But he that is just, is • n no debt for sin: therefore he that is justified, is in • o debt for sin. That the faithful are taught to • raye daily, forgive us our debts, it is because they • inne daily, and by sin enter into debt, and there • ore have need of daily remission to continue iusti • ied.

The Prodigal child Luke 15. he saithe, is the Gentile received by baptism, who if after baptism he became prodigal, he saith, I have not proved, that being received by penance, we must enjoin him no more punishment, then at his other receiving. Beside that he restraining this parable only to Gentiles, coming first to Baptism, depriveth the faithful of inestimable comfort, he neither hath any word in the scripture so to restrain it, and the whole contexte is against him. For Saint Luke showeth the occasion of the three parables of the lost sheep, of the lost Groate, and of the prodigal Child, to have been, because the Scribes and Pharisees murmured, that he received the Publican's, and sinners, which all were Jews and circumcised, yet fallen from the covenant of God by infinite and notorious sins: therefore according to right analogy, the lost Child, even as the lost sheep, and lost Groate, is every penitent sinner; the elder brother, as the 99. sheep, and 9. groates are the Scribes and Pharisees, which through hypocrisy in their own judgment, are righteous and need no repentance.

To the 2. debtors Luke 7. he answereth, that although Christ forgave them both, yet they both had to be forgiven after, according to the proportion of their love. This importeth manifest contradiction, he forgave all, yet something was not forgiven. Yea saith Bristow, Marie had much sins forgiven her, because she loved much, and therefore long after her hearts conversion, and therefore after her first forgiveness, Christ saith: Thy sins are forgiven thee.

This is a strange kind of reasoning. Christ showing the cause of Mary's great love, to have been for that great sins were forgiven her, expresseth in voice, that which she before conceived by faith, that her sins were forgiven her, Ergo after her first forgiveness, she had need of a second, which she procured by love. And yet it is more fond, that in saying to Simon and of Simon the Pharisee: To whom less is forgiven, he loveth less, he giveth him to understand, that he owed more then he was aware, and therefore he should increase as Marie did in penitential love. First howe proveth he that Simon was this other detter, to whom less was forgiven? Secondly, admit that he was, howe proveth he, that he should show as great penitential love as Marie, seeing his debt was not so great as Mary's, and therefore needed not so great a proportion of his love, according to his own heresy of merit? Thirdly, when Christ saith, To whom less is forgiven he loveth less, he speaketh not so much of the quantity of sins, but the acknowledging of them greater or lesser. For he that confesseth great sins to be pardoned, acknowledgeth that he is bound to great love, as Marie did: the Pharisee, who, though his sins were as great as Mary's, & in GOD'S sight, by means of hypocrisy more abhominable, yet was so blinded in opinion of his own righteousness, that he saw them not, and therefore this love was as cold, as he imagined his sins forgiven to be few and small.

Thus the history of the sinful woman's great love, proveth nothing that punishment remaineth due to be paid after the debt is forgiven. Whether this woman were Marie Magdalene, as Brîstowe calleth her, I will not here dispute. Saint Luke giveth her no name.

The foundation is overthrown, for all sins are proved to deserve eternal death, and when God pardoneth them, he pardoneth them clearly, as well the punishment as the guiltiness, for what should he punish in them that are guilty of no sin by his pardon. Therefore where I cited Psalm. 103. That God hath not dealt with us according to our sins, &c. Bristow is driven to his former shift, that these words are spoken of the Prophet only, for the time of the final reward which I have confuted before.

Concerning those that repent at the hour of death, I said they have reward of eternal life, as well as they that repent sooner, by authority of the parable Matthew 20. of them that came the last hour, to work in the vineyard.

Bristow saith, I am deceived, because I cannot see any justice in mercy. Yes verily, I see the justice of God fully answered in Christ, not in the person that needeth mercy, who is pardoned and justified gratis freely, Rom. 3. & 11. But the spirit of God saith, Apoc. 2. that he will give to everyone of you according to his works: wherevpō Bristow inferreth, y ^e God is not alike good to all, that he hath once shown mercy unto, for Christ, to all the baptized. I answer that text is a threatening to Jezebel, & them that commit fornication with her, if they do not repent from their works. For it followeth immediately. But to you I say and the rest in Thyatei •• , y ^t have not this doctrine, and which have not known y ^e depth of Satan, as they say, I will not lay upon you any other burden, &c. although it be true, that God rewardeth every man according to his works, which is in quality good or evil, not in quantity as much or as little as they deserve. What shall I say that Bristow bringeth in a variety of pence, contrary to the scope of the parable, & affirmeth the pence to be wages for the working & that also by bargain? So that eternal life is not the gift of God, neither are men saved by grace & not of works, in his judgment, contrary to the Apostles plain doctrine. Eph. 2.

In the conclusion he saith, If you can prove that God will show as full mercy also where he findeth not that fullness of Christ's grace, then call us hardly enemies, for not suffering God to show mercy to whom he will. But where wanteth that fullness of Christ's grace, in any of God's elect? Is it where greatest sins be? The Apostle answereth, where sin hath abounded, grace hath more then abounded. Rom. 5. Wherefore the fullness of the grace of Christ being extended to the greatest sins, what should we doubt that the lesser should not be swallowed up of it?

I said Purg. 198. I have learned in the scripture, that there is no name given under heaven, by which they may be helped, which are not helped by Christ's death, Act. 4. Bristow asketh whether I have learned, that they which are helped by the death of Christ, cannot through his grace help and be holpen one of another.

To whom I answer as I said before, to Allen: I learn in scripture, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sin, John. 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sins, by the blood of Christ, (as the Papists affirm them to be which have need of other purgation) I have not learned that they can have any help elsewhere. Or if you say, the blood of Christ h • th purged them from all sin, why do you invent another purgatory to purge them, which is not y ^e blood of Christ? for fiery torments according to God's justice are not the blood of Christ shed for our redemption, by which men are justified freely, Rom. 3. through which we have remission of our sins through the riches of his grace. Eph. 1.

Another reason of mine is grounded upon Allens words, which saith: that they which are in purgatory, cā not by any motion of mind, attain more mercy, then their life past deserved. Whereof I infer, that their faith being a notable motion of the mind, cannot profit them, except the merits of other men should profit them without faith, the Scripture saying, that without faith, it is not possible to please God. Bristow icsting at these iron conclusions, letteth the argument stand, and denieth the latter conclusion, affirming that by their faith, they are in case to be profited by other men's works: which if it be true, then is Allens conclusion false, that they cannot profit them selves, by any motion of mind, whereon it will follow that they cannot profit them selves by believing, that other men's works may help them, being destitute of their own. They cannot attain mercy by any motion of mind, Ergo not by faith.

As though I defended the only omnipotency of Christ's passion able to purge all sins, and not the omnisufficiencie having satisfied for our sins, first he replieth, that an Origenist might likewise say, The omnisufficiencie of Christ's passion cannot stand with hell.

No sir, for against him, is not only the will of Christ, but his Act also past, having sufficiently only for his elect: which satisfaction he communicateth unto them, not in respect of their works, but according to his grace, which can abide no works to join with it in merit, but only faith in receiving confirmed by the sacraments in the persons of all them, that hear his word, and in them that cannot hear, only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it: so that no degrees, proportions, means or instruments, whereof Bristow babbleth, can make any merit to detract from Christ's death, y ^e most plentiful & free grace of satisfactiō, for all our sins committed either before baptism, or after.

For this purpose, I cited 1. John. 2. Pur. 42. to prove that if any man sin after baptism, Jesus Christ is our Advocate with the father, and the propitiation for our sins. Bristow answereth, That is true, But that in playing the Advocate for our sins after baptism, he request • th the like & equal grace, as he did in baptism for sins afore baptism, where have you that? If you make Christ's advocation a playing matter, I will take no charge of you. But to let pass your irreverent phrase, what do you ascribe unto him in his office of advocate, but only to be a requester, as every common Saint is counted with you? But you must understand, that the office of an Advocate or patron is, to plead for his clientes, and not to require only, and what hath he to plead for us against y ^e debt of our sins, either before or after baptism but his own satisfaction in his death & suffering? And therefore even that which you ask, where I have i • I have even in the very same words, y ^t he requesteth as an advocate, for our sins after baptism the like and equal grace, as he did in Baptism for sins afore baptism. For there I find him a propitiation for our sins committed after baptism, which word I marvel your blind heresy could not see, whereof I reason thus. The same propitiation, as course of grace working after baptism, that was in or before baptism, must have equal effects of grace: But Christ is y ^e same propitiation after Baptism that he was in it, or before: Ergo he must have the same effects of grace, working the satisfaction of our sins even at the full. Where I allege Purg. 9 • . that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sins: 1. John. 1. Bristow answereth, It is taken out of the same place, and ha • h the same answer, to wit, that his blood doth work more graciously in the sacrament of baptism, then in the sacrament of penance. Of pe • ance being a sacrament, I will not here dispute, but fol • owe the principal matter in controversy, whether all • inns of the repentant, after baptism, be as clearly purged, as they were in baptism by the blood of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argument, doth • ufficiently prove it, yet even this very place is manifest • y to be understood of the blood of Christ purging all our sins committed after baptism, as well as before. The blood of Christ, saith S. John purgeth us, that is, me & you (baptized Christians, I doubt not) of all sin, which if we say we have not, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. The word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth make pure and clean, and so is the vulgar latin emundat. Again he saith in the same place: if we confess our sins, • e is faithful and just that he may forgive us our sins, and make us pure from all iniquity. If the blood of Christ, in which we have forgiveness, doeth purge us from all our sins, and make us pure from all iniqui • ie, whensoever we acknowledge them with hearty repentance; what place is left for any other purging or cleansing of that, which the blood of Christ and the mercy of God hath made pure and clean?

That I cite out of S. John, being washed by Christ, we are thoroughly clean. John 13. & out of Isaiah: Although our sins were as red as scarlet, they are made as white as snow: He answereth these places are evident of baptism. And therefore he admitteth that I said of them so cleansed, that they are made capable immediately of the heavenly inheritance. But why, I pray you, are they evident of baptism? because there is mention of washing in both places? Is there no washing but in baptism? At least wise, will you say, that the Prophet Isaiah preaching to the people of his age, when he called them to washing, called them to baptism, so many hundredth years before baptism was instituted? Is it not therefore evident, that he calleth them to repentance? Or else, having first so grievously accused them of their present sins, doeth he show no comfort, but in the sacrament of baptism, which no man living could then possibly obtain in such manner as you mean, no not the Prophet him self. I might well say to you, as you say to me in another place, In good sooth Dauus, these things are not aptly divided according to their times. And that Christ John. 13. speaketh not of the ceremony of baptism, it i • manifest by diverse reasons, but of his grace by which he washeth us from all our sins. And therefore be saith to Peter, except he were washed of him, he could have no part with him. But neither Peter, nor any other was or is baptized of him with water: John 4. therefore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptism. And where you add, that he which is so washed, must nevertheless wash his feet, that is, say you, his venial sins, which he committeth afterward, although he continue withal in the cleanness of baptism, before he be all clean, and ask me, what if he die before he wash his feet? Admitting that the feet should signify none but venial sins. I ask you again, who shall wash his feet, but he which washed Peters feet? for the true text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he hath no need but that his feet be washed. Peter could not wash his own feet in this figurative signification, but except Christ did wash him he could have no part with him. But if we should take the feet only for venial sins, and the general washing for baptism, this inconvenience would follow of Christ's words: that he which is baptized and purged from venial sins, need no purgation to cleanse him from mortal sins, but is perfectly clear. The words of our savior are general, & cannot admit your exception, of continuing in the cleanness of baptism: therefore the feet signify all sins to be pardoned, after the first grace purging us, which is in deed represented and ratified in baptism, but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament, and often times divided. For Judas of whom you speak, if he had died immediately after he was baptized, should not have gone to heaven, as one thoroughly washed or cleansed by • aptisme.

Where the Papists urge the saying of David, Psal. • 1. Amplius laua me, &c. Wash me more from mine in • quitie: Bristow saith, I have nothing to answer, but • hat it was at God's hand, and by the means of Christ's • lood, that he prayed to be cleansed. Purg. 97. & 78. Whether I have nothing else to say, let the readers of • hose places judge. But that which I here say, taketh a • ay Purgatory and all satisfaction of man's merit, all • hough David, as all the faithful do pray, that they may • aily more and more feel the mercy of God and grace • f Christ's redemption, to the full satisfying of their • onscience, and perfect assurance of faith and hope of e • ernall life, which though it receive daily increases, yet • he virtue of Christ's death, in which God is reconciled • nto us, is always one and the same.

Where I charge Allen, that the sufficiency of Christ's • assion, is counted a light argument unto him: Bristow • aith, it is too light in deed, to bear down any doctrine • f Christ. But when, or out of what scripture shall we • ear the doctrine of Christ for men's merits, satisfa • tions, propitiatory, or purgatory it self?

Where I deny, that our works are any parte of sa • isfaction for our sins, of which the price is through • y paid in the passion of Christ: Bristow objecteth the • aying of the Apostle, Phil. 2. Work your own salvation: and yet it is God that worketh in you. As though there were no working of our salvation, but by satisfaction for our sins. We work our salvation, when we walk in the way that God hath called us to pass through, unto the free gift of eternal life, namely in faith, obedience, thankfulness, &c. which are so far from merit, that it is God which worketh in us, both to will and to perform any good thing, according to his good pleasure. Phil. 2. And therefore we need not the school distinction of causes, for the satisfaction of our sins by our works, which is only the effect of Christ's death and passion, needing no help of our works, which word (Bristow saith) mine ignorance so much abhorreth, and yet the scripture often saith, that God helpeth both Christ, Ps. 17. & us. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christ's helpeth us, Heb. 2. But where saith the Scripture, that our works help the passion of Christ? I abhor not the word of helping, when it is used in that sense, that God and Christ should help us; or God help Christ in respect of his humanity: but that man by merit should help God & Christ, in the work of our redemption, satisfaction for our sins, or purging of them, I abho •• e with all my heart: yea, I spit at it, and tread it under my feet. But if the mercy of God (saith Bristow) although i • be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christ's passion, nor the working of it, or merits of that man: how doeth the omnisufficiencie of Christ's passiō, enforte you to exclude either his baptism & his good works in his members, or also the working of his baptism, and the working or efficacy of those good works▪ especially seeing the scripture is plain for all. Bristow understandeth not, how the mercy of God is omnisufficient, which is not as e • ery one will imagine, but as it may stand with his justice, which is not otherwise satisfied, but in the passion of Christ: which being thereby fully satisfied, we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth, but that which not only the scripture denieth, but nature it self abhorreth, that contradictories should be both true: Namely, the justice of God is fully satisfied by the only suffering of Christ: And the justice of god is not satisfied by the only sufferings of Christ, but by other means also, as by our own works, or sufferings, or other men's for us. Neither doeth any text of scripture that Bristow citeth, prove this later part of the contradiction to be true. First, where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saved us by the laver of regeneration: The text is, when the loving kindness & gentleness of God our savior appeared, not of the works of righteousness, which we wrought, but according to his own mercy, he hath saved us, by the laver of regeneration and the receiving of the holy ghost, which he hath poured forth plentifully upon us by Jesus Christ our savior, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Here it is manifest, we are so • aued by baptism, that we are justified by his grace, there • ore not by the merit of baptism or satisfactiō of our 〈…〉 nnes in baptism: but we are saved by baptism, as we • re in • eo • fed by a deed, that is sealed, that is, assured of • aluation: as Abraham received circumcision, the seal • f the righteousness, which he had by faith, before he was • ircumcised. Ro. 4. and even so he cleanseth his church by • he laver of water, not by the merit of y ^e work of bap • isme, but in that he gave him self for it, that he might sanctify it, Eph. 5. After the same manner doth baptism save us. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of y ^e filth of the flesh, • ut y ^e interrogatiō of a good conscience before god, though • ough the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which presuppo • eth his death, for satisfaction of our sins, as his resur • ection is the special cause of our justification. Last of • ll, saith Bristow: he hath made us kings & priests to God, Apo. 1. If spiritual priests, ergo, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, as of 〈…〉 ur mortification. Rom. 12. our alms deeds, Heb. 13. both for our • wne sins, & for the sins of other. Here in the last point, • he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth: but we shall have reason confirmed by scripture: because the • xternall priest is ordained to offer external sacrifices for sins, • oth for him self & for the people. Heb. 5. But this cause is many ways avoided: for we are priests to offer up y ^e on • y sacrifices of thanksgiving, & not of propitiation for sin, which cannot be without shedding of blood Heb. 9. Secondly, although we be all made priests, yet we are not made high priests, of which the text speaketh. Heb. 5. which office one only can enjoy at one time, which is our savior Christ, for term of his life, which is without end. Thirdly, those sacrifices which the external priest offered for sins, could never take away sins, Heb. 10. much less our spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving for God's benefits bestowed on us, & his whole church. I cited further. Apoc. 7. These are they y ^t came out of y ^t great affliction, & have washed their stoles, and made them white in y ^e blood of the lamb: therefore they are in y ^e presence of y ^e throne of god. Brist. saith, this word therefore, is referred to their coming out of affliction, and so whited their stoles: And yet this gloser (saith he of me) taketh it away from the affliction, whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction. O impudent and blasphemous heretic: when the holy ghost expressly saith, they made their stoles white in the blood of the lamb, darest thou open thy mouth and say, not only, that that whiting was somewhat else then the blood of Christ, but also that it was nothing but that affliction, so utterly excluding the blood of Christ? But I forgot to confer other places of scripture, as he chargeth me. Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sins, to any other thing, than to the blood of Christ? Let us hear what, whoso overcometh, shall be clothed with white garments. Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs overcame the devil, not only by the blood of the lamb, but also by their own patient confession, or affliction unto death. Apoc. 12. The text is: and they overcame him by the blood of the lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. Here is no cause of victory, but the blood of the lamb, and the word of their testimony, which was the confession of their faith, the only instrumental cause of their justification and victory: who is he which overcometh the world, saith S. John, but he that believeth? 1. John 5. Faith therefore the only shilde to have victory against the world and the devil, hath no power in it self to cleanse our sins, but leaneth altogether to the blood of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristow forsake his vulgar latin authentical translation, and to turn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by their own martyrdom, which is in deed by the word of their testimony, or which they did testify: whereas by his translation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should signify no more then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be taken for suffering of death, as I think it is in no Greek author, sure I am it is never so taken in the new testament.

But Bristow addeth: that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of Jesus, when the Apostles were mortified for Jesus, and saith they carried the same about continually in their bodies, that also the life of Jesus might also be manifected in their bodies, 2. Cor. 4. I wot well, we must be conformable to Christ in sufferings, that we may be partakers of his kingdom and glory: but doeth it therefore follow, that our sufferings merit this glory by his blood? or that his blood without all respect of our merits, doeth not alone purge and cleanse us from all our sins? After he had finished the cleansing of our sins by his own self, saith the Apostle, he is set down at the right hand of magnificence in the highest. Heb. 1.

Last of all, Bristow opposeth that Saint Paul saith: This our affliction although it be but short and light, worketh us everlasting weight of glory exceeding measure above measure. 2. Cor. 4. I answer, it worketh not by meriting, not by purging our sins, or by satisfying for our iniquities, but by making us conformable unto our head, in passing by the same way of tribulations unto glory, that he did, even as the way or steppes which leadeth unto an high place of dignity, maketh not them worthy of the dignity that must ascend by those steppes unto it, and yet it is necessary for them that will come to that dignity, to sit in such places, to take that ordinary way. Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignity, so doeth affliction work our glory. Not to abridge any part of the glory or merit of Christ's suffering, by which only we are made worthy of glory when all our sins being cleansed by his blood, we appear righteous before God, not in the merit of our own works, nor having our own righteousness, which is by the law, but the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, that we may know him of the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable unto his death, Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth, that seeing the blood of Christ purgeth us of all our sins, and Jesus Christ is y ^e propitiation for our sins, committed either after baptism or before, that all other purgings and satisfactions are overthrown, and so popish purgatory remaineth without any foundation: the purging of Christ's blood making us most pure: and Christ our propitiation being thoroughly & only sufficient to reconcile us.

Secondly: directly of Purgatory it self & prayer for the dead, whether all the elect go straight to heaven. Afore Christ's coming Limbus patrum.

His childish railing on mine arguments, with that impudent slander of all the church of God, which he affirmeth was ignorant that any souls went to heaven before their church had defined it, within these 300. years, I pass over, & come to the matter in question. I said Purg. 57. against Allen, maintaining that all the just before Christ were punished for their sins forgivē ma ny hundredth years after their departure in hell. That the fathers of the old testament before Christ were not in hell, it is to be proved with manifest arguments & authorities out of holy scriptures. Although they were not, nor yet are in perfect blessedness, God providing a better thing for us, that they without us, should not be made perfect. Heb. 11. But by this text (saith Brist.) S. Paul doth mean, y ^t their souls were not yet admitted into heaven. How proveth he that? forsooth, the old testament did consummate nothing, &c. but their sins remaining not perfectly remitted, Christ died, &c. A sore bolt, as though any man had his sins forgiven, but by the new testament, or could be heir of the kingdom of heaven, but by y ^e death of Christ. But the same apostle saith. Heb 9. That the way of the saints, was not yet opened, while the first tabernacle stood. Bristow addeth to the text of his own, into soncta or heaven: where the apostle meaneth of the work of Christ's redemption in his death, resurrection & ascension, the effect whereof, nevertheless was extended no less to the fathers of y ^t old testament, then to us. Thirdly, the apostle saith, Heb. 10. that we have confidence to enter in to the holy place, by the blood of Jesus, which hath dedicated y ^t new & living way for us, through the veil that is his flesh. All which proveth nothing, but that there is no entrance into heaven, but by Christ, which way is common to all y ^e saints of God, of all ages. But Bristow biddeth me confer the end of my text. Heb. 11. with the beginning: where he saith, they received not y ^e promise which is the expositiō of their not consummating: I admit it: for no Christian receiveth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies. The consummation of which promise, & perfection of the saints, God reserveth unto one time, when we shall all receive the promise & consummation together: that they without us (saith he) should not be consummate, the same reason is of the apostles & fathers of the primitive church, & us of the later church, & them y ^t shall be to y ^e end of the world. Now to mine arguments & authorities of scripture. I reason, that seeing they all believed in Christ, they had everlasting life, & entered not into condemnation, but passed frō death to life. John. 5. To what life (saith Bristow) but the life or resurrection of their bodies? for until the last day, all the dead are in death. O prodigious heretic, call you that a passage frō death to life, to continue in death 5. or 6. thousand years? Is God then to this new Saducee, the god of the dead & not of the living? yea, he saith, y ^t life after corporal death in y ^e new testament, lightly everywhere, signifieth y ^e resurrection of the bodies. What is it then to take hold of eternal life in this world, which shall be interrupted w ^t so long abiding in death? 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our savior saith: he that believeth in me, hath already eternal life, if they y ^t are passed out of this world are all in death? wherefor then is this eternal life interupted with any Purgatory, Limbus patrum, or death.

The second argument is, of that Christ is called the lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world; because the benefit of his passion extendeth unto the godly of all ages alike. Apoc. 13. To this, the beast hath nothing to answer, but y ^t it is not said, that the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world: but that all the reprobates shall adore antichrist whē he cometh. And because Apoc. 17. the words be: whose names were not written in the book of life frō the beginning of the world: he would have those words from the beginning of the world, by a monstrous construction, contrary to the manifest composition and pointing, both in the Greek & vulgare Latin, to be referred not to the lamb slain, but to the book of life. As though both those texts in their several sense might not be true, except such manifest violence were offered to the construction cōposition & pointing in this text of y ^e Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true, that y ^e lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, which is nowhere else written in the scripture, but here: the cause of the truth, he will not have to be my fond sense, but because his death was preordeined of God, and prefigured so long before. A substantial cause by which we may say, that Bristow was dead from the beginning of the world, because his death was so long before ordained of God, and prefigured in the death of Adam.

The third argument is, that Isaiah speaking of y ^t righteous that are departed out of this life, saith that there is peace, and that they shall rest in their beds, Esa. 57. like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon, or hell, is prepared of old for the wicked. To this he answereth, that Isaiah speaketh not of his own time, but as a Prophet, of the time now since the coming of Christ, who is our peace, as though Christ were not their peace as well as ours. And what a shameless answer is this, to deny the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithful after death, to pertain to the faithful of his own time, to whom then it was in vain preached and published by the Prophet? After a little quarreling against my translatiō, the sense whereof he cannot deny: he asketh, if the rest of the souls must needs be the bliss of heaven? and telleth us that their Limbus was not a place of sensible pain: But sir, Salom whereinto the Prophet saith the righteous do go, will not only give them rest, without sense of pain: but peace with happiness and prosperity. Finally, he saith, Topheth or Gehenna, was not the only hell, because our Creed and the Scripture saith, that Christ's soul was in hell: I answer, that hell signifieth either the place, or state of torments for sins: in the former, Calvin (whom you slander) saith not that Christ was in, but in the later, when he complained that he was forsaken of God: there is not therefore proved, by Christ's discending into hell, any other place or receptacle of souls in hell, but Topheth and Gehenna y ^e place of the damned.

The fourth argument against Limbus, is, that Lazarus was carried by Angels, not down to hell, but up to Abraham's bosom. But the riche man being in hell, looked up and seeth Abraham afar of. Bristow asketh whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify to be carried up? sir, it signifieth to be carried away, and seeing the riche man looking up, seeth Lazarus afar of, it followeth that Lazarus was carried up and not down. But you reply, it followeth not that he was carried into heaven. Then you may say he was carried up to hell. But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heaven, although one were upward, and also far off both in state and situation (purgatory peradventure betwixt them.) This is a goodly faith, that standeth upon peradventure, and this may be, &c. The Scripture saith, there was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance between them, which cannot agree to Limbus, which must be hard adjoining to hell, or else it is not Limbus. But if they were no way nigh together (saith he) it will not follow that Abraham's bosom was heaven. I answer, if they were no way nigh together, it could not be hell, nor Limbus of hell, which is the thing I was to prove. Also the text is plain, that Abraham's bosom was a place of comfort. And other place of comfort then heaven or Paradise, which is all one, for the souls departed, I find none in Scripture.

The last argument is this: If righteousness belong to Abraham's children, the reward of righteousness also pertaineth to them. Therefore Abraham's bosom was open to receive all the childrem of Abraham, even as the bosom of God was ready to receive Abraham, because he was his son through faith.

Here Bristow noteth no small blasphemy, proceeding of gross ignorance, saying, That which is proper to vnigenitus, the only begotten son of God, he maketh common to Abraham. Why Bristow? because vnigenitus is eternally, and after his proper manner, in the bosom of the father, doth it thereof follow, that none can be in the bosom of GOD, but the proper place of Christ is made common to them? You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my gross ignorance in the scriptures, and have you such fine knowledge in them, that you could not see what Isaiah writeth Chap. 40. according to your own translation, Ecce dominus Deus, &c. Behold the Lord God shall come in strength, and his arm shall have the dominion: behold his reward is with him, and his work before him: As a shepherd he will feed his flock, he will gather the Lambes together on his arm and bear them in his bosom: in sin • suo leuabit? Behold you great and mighty doctors in the scriptures, the bosom of GOD as of a shephearde, is open to receive all his Lambes; howe much more as a father to receive his children? But to the argument you answer: The reward of righteousness may belong to one, and yet not paid him, as soon as he dieth. Saint Paul saying expressly of Abraham and many of his children, that they departed not receiving the promises, but beholding them a far off: and all these renowned by faith, received not the promise. That is (saith Bristow) the inheritance, the reward of righteousness: I reply, the reward of righteousness cannot belong to one, but it must be paid him as soon as it is paid unto others, to whom the same reward, upon the same cause belongeth: therefore seeing it is paid to some immediately after their death, it is likewise to all. That many died not receiving the promises, is partelie understood of the promises of the lande of Canaan, partelye of the full fruition and perfection of reward, which to all men is denied before the last judgment, and so no inequality or injustice unto any.

They that live unto Christ, die unto him, and being disolued are with him. The souls of the faithful and the repentant are where Christ is, as he prayeth • oan 17. so he saith to the thief, no perfect just • an, but a sinner repentant, This day thou shalt • ee with me in Paradise, Luke 23. And Saint P • ule desireth to be dissolved and to be with Christ.

To leave his juggling of seeing Christ's godheades glory, and manhoodes glory, whereof I speak no word, he confesseth the example of Saint Paul declareth, that a per • ect just man goeth straight to Christ: Likewise the example if the thief declareth, that a penitent sinner, goeth straight to Christ, if either his penance be full and perfect, or his pardon, which is a remission of his penance be plenary. By this you perceive that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory, and not for repentance of the heart and true conversion unto GOD: But there is a plenary pardon and satisfaction for all sins given to every penitent sinner: therefore every penitent sinner goeth straight to Christ whom we know and believe to be in heaven. The minor is proved, by saint John, 1. John 2. Jesus Christ is our advocate and propitiation for our sins. The blood of Jesus Christ doth purge us from all sins.

Secondly he saith, I allude to a place, Romans 14. we live to our Lord, and we die to our Lord: whereby nothing else is meant, but that he is our judge in life and death. A bare exposition, if we have no more comfort by living to the Lord, then that he shall be our judge at our death. Howe be it I ground not mine argument only, of that phrase, to control Augustine's exposition of them that die in the Lord, Apoca. 14. for martyrs only, as you slander me, but compare other places of the faithful, that are asleep in Christ, 1. Corin. 15. And they that are dead in Christ, 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one, with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, that text cannot be restrained only to the blessedness of martyrs, but extendeth to the happiness of all that are dead in the Lord, which are all the faithful. But the circumstance of the place (saith Bristow) giveth it to be meant of martyrs. I answer, there is no circumstance that can prove it to be spoken only of Martyrs) seeing the argument of their blessedness, is dying in the Lord, which is common to all the faithful, therefore blessedness also, and that is the judgment of S. Augustine de ciu. dei lib. 20 Cap. 9. whatsoever Allen or you prate to the contrary. For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus upon it. Reg. nat itaque:

Whether that judgment may stand with Purgatory.

My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting, which in deed is no argument of mine, neither do I think the text Eccle 11. to be understood of the state of men after this life: only I show that Allen by his glosses, hath not satisfied them that so expound it, of whom one is S. Jerome. Purg, 436. 439. 441. Indeed Purg 281. I said, immediately after death (as M. Allen confesseth) followeth judgment, but prayers either need not or boot not, where the party is either aquitted or condemned, by 〈…〉 e sentence of the judge, which, as Augustine saith, can • ot be indifferent between reward and punishment. De 〈…〉 b. arb. lib. 3. Cap. 23. To this he answereth first that saint • ugustine there saith the contrary, as I shall see if I read 〈…〉 e place. Why sir, I read it thus: Superfluo quaeri de meri 〈…〉 s, &c. In vain do men move a question of his merits, which hath deserved nothing, speaking of the death of 〈…〉 n infant) neque enim: for it is not to be feared, least his 〈…〉 fe could have been media, mean or indifferent, be • ween well doing and sin: Et sententia iudicis media es 〈…〉 non possit inter premium atque supplicium, and the sentence 〈…〉 f the judge cannot be mean or indifferent, between 〈…〉 ewarde and punishment. This I trust shall suffice of my 〈…〉 eading, until we see what you read to the contrary. 〈…〉 ut to mine argument, Bristow answereth for them 〈…〉 at are condemned to hell, prayers boot not: of them 〈…〉 at are aquitted, some straight rewarded in their souls, 〈…〉 o • which they need no prayers, but yet not rewarded 〈◊〉 their bodies for which they pray, Apoc. 6. until they 〈…〉 e heard, Apoc. 11. other not straight rewarded in their 〈…〉 ules, of which some be without sense of punishment, as 〈◊〉 Limbo other be punished temporally, &c. If it be 〈…〉 wfull to make such divisions and subdiuisions, with • ut the authority of the scriptures, we may imagine what we will. But sir, for them that be aquitted of sin, and can have no mean sentence between reward and punishment, how can their reward be deferred or how can they be punished for sin, which are aquitted thereof? As for them that lack the reward of their body, it • s that they may receive it in time most convenient, both for the glory of God and for the commodities of • ll the saints of God together. As for the martyrs, Apoc. 6, I find they complained for justice against their murderers, I find not that they prayed for the reward of their body: which complaint is to be understood rather of the desert of the wicked persecutors then of the affection of the holy martyrs. The blood of Abel cried vengaunce, yet Abel patiently suffered death. The differences of punishment for being angry saying • ac • , & fatue, prove difference of damnation greater for greater offenses, but not of punishment less then damnation due for the least, seeing our savior Christ appointeth the same guiltiness for unadvised anger, which the Pharisees did for murder: who never were so far past all show of honesty, to make murder a venial sin, not deserving damnation, as you do.

Another argument is out of Matth. 7. of the two ways, if there be but two ways in this life, there are but two abiding places after this life. To this Bristow answereth, although the argument be not mine, but an objection that Allen taketh on him to answer: First that in the wide way some go wider then some, with infinite variety, but all to damnation presently: Secondly in the narrow way, some go narrower then some with infinite variety, yet all in the narrow way: Ergo say I, all straight to salvation. Although in a way so narrow, that it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉 thrusting way, or a way, whose sides are thrust together, that there should be such infinite variety of narrowness, which must also import an infinite widenes, it is against all reason, and the word of the text. Wherefore it cannot be the way of merits but of faith.

Another argument is of the text 2. Cor. 5. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive in his body according to such things as he hath done either good or evil. Therefore the prayers or deeds of other men help not. To this he answereth out of Augustine, that the dead in our Lord, hath in his life deserved, that these works after his death might be profitable to him. Against which authority, he saith, I have no reply, to maintain that scripture against such prayer, but only oppose a saying of Jerome. I think the scripture it self is a sufficient reply against all authority of man. Every man shall receive according to his own works, and not according to the works of other men, as for the desert of man, it is nothing but unto damnation. And yet that argument is 〈…〉 ected by Allen, not framed by me.

An other argument I have of the judgment of God, 〈…〉 r. 85. If Purgatory be so necessary to satisfy God's iu 〈…〉 e by temporal pains of sinners according to the 〈…〉 e, &c. and Purgatory shall cease, as you affirm out 〈…〉 Augustine: How shall the same be satisfied in them 〈…〉 t die immediately before the day of judgment, so 〈…〉 t they have not had time enough there to be suffici 〈…〉 tly purged? The like may be demanded of all them 〈…〉 ich in a moment shall be changed from mortality 〈…〉 immortality at the very coming of Jesus Christ 〈…〉 to judgment? These are two doughtie questions 〈…〉 yeth Bristow, for answer of which he asketh me, 〈…〉 here I find that principle in Allen? That Purgato 〈…〉 is necessary to satisfy according to the time. For 〈…〉 oth sir, Where he saith, if any debt remain to be dischar 〈…〉 d it must needs rise by proportion, weight, continuance, number 〈…〉 d quantity of the faults, whereby it must of necessity be indu 〈…〉 d, that because every man cannot have time to repay all in his 〈…〉 e, that there is all, or some part aunswerable in the world to 〈…〉 e. Here sir of faults we have proportion, weight, 〈…〉 ntinuance, number, quantity, therefore we must 〈…〉 aue satisfaction in purgatory according to propor 〈…〉 on, weight, continuance, number, quantity of them, 〈…〉 xcept you will as well deny the proportion, weight, number, & quantity of faults to be regarded in Purgatory, as the time. Wherefore if a great proportion of faults deserve a great proportion of punishment, heavy faults, heavy punishment, many faults, many strypes, great faults, great pains: what reason have you, why long continuance in faults should not deserve long continuance in Purgatory? You answer a short time in great pain, will satisfy for long penance in this life.

But where is the continuance of sins by Allens necessity to be paid in proportion of long time in Purgatory? So that in effect, you answer, but without book y ^t the furnace of Purgatory toward y ^t 〈◊〉 of y ^e world must be heated hot, because y ^e souls 〈◊〉 tarry there the shorter time. With such inventions 〈◊〉 may answer any question. But I seek a resolution 〈◊〉 of the word of God, or good reason agreeable thereto.

To the 2. question, you answer, it is not 〈◊〉 to God's mercy, to remit such punishment at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quest of his glorious Saints, as he now doeth • or 〈◊〉 Churches prayers. But seeing the Saints know not 〈◊〉 sodennes of that moment, howe shall they pray for 〈◊〉 discharge of them that deserve to go to purgatory. 〈◊〉 they pray for it continually, why pray they not, as 〈◊〉 to discharge all other men from purgatory, as those th 〈…〉 shall remain alive at the coming of Christ? And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercy, it is not the matter in question, but howe it may stand with 〈◊〉 justice, which as you hold, requireth satisfaction by temporal punishment. For otherwise we know it standeth both with his justice, and his mercy, y ^t they which obtain forgiveness of their sins by Christ, should immediately after their death be received into the fellowship of them that are likewise made righteous by him. Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei. lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moved, but not answered, and yet the place is corrupted and enforced, as Ludovicus Vives confesseth. In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth, against them which held that God after the judgment, would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints. In the 27. Chapter, which he also quoteth, there is nothing to the question.

This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians, to mourn for the dead, much more it is against the hope and faith of Christians, to pray for them. For by our prayer, we suppose them 〈…〉 e in misery, whom the word of God doeth testify 〈…〉 e in happiness, to be at rest, to be with Christ. John. Apoc. 14. Bristow answereth: those Scriptures prove that they be straightway in happiness, &c. as he 〈◊〉 shown, and I have shown the contrary, that they • roue it, notwithstanding all his impudent cauilati 〈…〉 . Secondly, he saith, it is not against hope to mourn, 〈◊〉 to mourn as the Gentiles, which know not the 〈…〉 rrection. Neither do I say that all mourning is a 〈…〉 st hope, but such mourning as supposeth them to 〈…〉 n misery, or to be lost, as the Papists, & Pagans 〈◊〉 ? Our mourning for the delay of the kingdom God, as he understandeth it, for the general resurre 〈…〉 n, is for our present misery, and therefore lawful 〈…〉 e joined with hope. But mourning for the dead, whose happiness the Scripture assureth us, is a 〈…〉 nst faith, therefore contrary to hope.

〈…〉 nother argument in the same place is: All places 〈…〉 cripture that forbid prayers without faith, for 〈…〉 de prayers for the dead. For faith is an assurance 〈◊〉 of the word of God, &c.

This argument (saith Bristow) supposeth, that the 〈…〉 de of God is only Scripture. Yea verily it suppo 〈…〉 , that only Scripture is the warrant of God's word, we have before maintained and also answered, to 〈◊〉 Apocryphal Book of the Maccabees.

A third argument is, Pur. 281. We learn out of God's 〈…〉 rde, that whatsoever we pray for according to his 〈…〉 ll, we shall obtain. 1. John. 5. Prayers for the dead 〈◊〉 not according to the will of God, and therefore they 〈◊〉 not heard at all. Bristow denieth the minor, which he 〈…〉 th, I have not proved. Yes verily, I prove it because y ^e 〈…〉 dgement followeth immediately after death: and in 〈…〉 dgement, God will hear no prayers. And therefore 〈…〉 istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sin not 〈…〉 to death, and shameful addition, Let him after his death 〈…〉 quest of Christ, and life shall be given unto him, is false, and 〈…〉 surde, although he saith, he hath given the plain & smoth 〈…〉 se of the whole place, which is to be understood of men living and not of the dead. A smooth expos 〈…〉 If one see his brother sin, he must pray for him a 〈…〉 his death. Again, he urgeth the present temps, who 〈◊〉 knoweth his brother to sin a sin not to death, 〈◊〉 one (saith Bristow) that lived in schism, but yet 〈◊〉 reconciled before he died. O monstrous and more th 〈…〉 palpable blindness! be these verbs, lived, reconc 〈…〉 died, of the present or preterperfect temps, which t 〈…〉 deniest the Apostle to have used. But omit the te 〈…〉 which he calleth him, a brother which liveth in schis 〈…〉 How much more soundly may I reason upon the present temps? Saint John biddeth us pray for a brother 〈…〉 ning: but a brother sinning, is only living: therefore S. John biddeth us pray only for a brother living. For they y ^t are in Purgarorie, neither deserve nor sin, by your own confession. As for the sin against the holy Ghost, which we say is not to be prayed for at all, he threateneth often, to consute in the 12. Chapter. In the mean time it is evident that Purgatory for anything that is hitherto applied by Bristow, remaineth confuted by sufficient arguments and authority of the Scriptures.

Remitting the questions of the witnesses of God's word, unto five motives in the 10. Chapter: where I allege that good works do not justify two places, one of Saint Paul, another of Isaiah, he holdeth the contrary, that works do justify. And first calling me a falsary, because I recite not the very words of the Apostle, which was not my purpose, but to show what we do affirm out of that text of the Apostle, he saith, justification by works, is not denied by that text of Saint Paul, Rom. 3. We hold that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, for it is to be understood of works going before Baptism, and not of works following 〈…〉 aptisme, because Saint James saith a man is justified of • orkes and not of faith only. To this I answer 〈…〉 aint Paul speaketh of justification before God: Saint 〈…〉 ames of justification before men. Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by love: Saint James of a bare know 〈…〉 edge, a barren and dead faith, a faith that is void of good works.

And that Saint Paul speaketh generally of all good works, it is manifest by this reason, that he saith, boa 〈…〉 ting is excluded, not by the law of works, but by the 〈…〉 awe of faith: what manner of exclusion were it, to shut • ut boasting for a moment, while one is baptized, and • mmediately after receive it again, by defending justification by works. Again he saith immediately after, • t is one God which shall justify circumcision which is of faith, and uncircumcision through faith, y ^t is the circum 〈…〉 ised, & the uncircumcised are all justified by faith, as A • raham in both the states was justified by faith, without the works of the law, although, (as James saith) he was • ustified before men, by his oblation, which was but a 〈…〉 riall of his faith, and obedience. Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth, Tit. 3. not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own great mercy, 〈…〉 e saved us by baptism: Bristow asketh, if I mark the temps. Yea, very well, he speaketh of works before faith. And doth it therefore follow, that works done after faith, do justify? Saint Paul extendeth the salvation (which is sealed unto us by the laver of new birth, and renewing of the holy Ghoste, which he hath poured richly upon us by Jesus Christ our savior, unto eternal life: therefore it followeth, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Upon the 2. text Es. 64. I said: the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silk, which is the justification of Saints, made white in the blood of the lamb, but with the filthy rags of man's righteousness. Bristow asketh where I learned, to call the good works done in the Church, the filthy rags of man's righteousness? Verily, even of Isaiah who speaketh in the person of the Church: All we are as an unclean person, and all our righteousness, as filthy rags. For although God accept our works, that are done in faith, and pardon their imperfection, yet when they are obtruded unto him, to justify us, he abhorreth them, as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the justifications of the Saints. Apoc. 19. are good works, Bristow would have it appear by conference of 1. John. 3. He that worketh justice is just, where he reasoneth of the effects of a just man, & not of the cause. No flesh is just by works of the law, but by faith, by which God maketh just, even the ungodly man. But how much better conference is it, to know, what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth, which is the justification of Saints, to compare it with other places of the same prophecy, as Apoc. 7. where it is shown, howe the stoles of the faithful are made white, with the blood of the lamb, and with the place of Saint Paul showing how the Church is made white, and without spot and wrinkle by the death of Christ? Ephe. 5.

Touching freewill, I said, we believe, that man after his fall, hath not free will, no not aptness of will to think anything that is good. 2. Cor. 3. Bristow translateth the word, we are not sufficient, but the text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We are not apt, to think anything of our selves as of our selves, but our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aptness, is of God. To this Bristow replieth, that natural free will is not taken from us, nor natural aptness of will. I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher, and not like a flat Pelagian. But I speak as a Christian of the freedom of man's will unto good, which is none but bondage unto evil, except he be regenerate, and then is his will framed of God in parte, to good, but not perfectly in this life, as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies: as for freedom opposite to coaction, if Bristow mean that, by retaining of free will, I grant every man's will to be free from constreint, but not from seruilitie unto sin. Whereof Saint complaineth, Rom 7.

Moreover I said Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e maintained, if God's spirit have any place, that di 〈…〉 ributeth to everyone according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his own will? 1. Cor. 12. Bristowes answer is, that God can work his own will upon our willes, which is 〈…〉 ery true, but without working of God's spirit, our will 〈…〉 ath no aptness unto any good thing. Again he saith, 〈…〉 hat Saint Paul speaketh of the gifts, that are freely gi 〈…〉 en, and not of them, that make a man acceptable, as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts, which are not freely given. And it is evident that he speaketh generally of all working of God's spirit, even of confessing Jesus to be Christ, and not of special graces only. So that Bristowes answer is nothing to the purpose, or matter 〈…〉 n question. For I hold, that we have no aptenesse unto 〈…〉 ny good, of our own freewill, but only of the grace of God. Bristow saith, I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent, if we have willes of our own, which I never 〈…〉 enied: but that we have willes of out own unto good, before they be framed thereto by God's spirit, is the thing 〈◊〉 deny.

About good works in special, namely prayer to Saints, 〈…〉 astinge, merits.

Concerning invocation of Saints, I said Purg. 451. we call not upon Saints, because we believe not in thē: for how should we call upon them in whom we believe not? Rom. 10. To this (reserving a pretended contradiction to the proper place) he saith: first that Saint Paul, did often invocate & call upon the faithful, beseching them to pray for him, which is a toye to mock with an Ape, for Saint Paul did not invocate or pray to them as unto them that knew his heart, and could help his grief, but only of charity desireth their prayers. Secondly he asketh, where is any Scripture, that we must believe in God only? Forsooth, amongst many, this shall suffice, which is written in Jeremiah Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawful to bêleue in Saints also, Bristow quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said, the people believed God, and Moses his servant, as though there were no difference between giving credit to God's Prophets, and believing in them, which is to put our trust in them. The like I say to the seconde place, quoted 2. Par. 20. where Jehoshaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people, if they give credit to God's Prophets, Credite Prophetis eius. But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation, he provoketh us to the Hebrew, belike because of the preposition, beth, which is a miserable shift: Seeing the Hebrew phrase is well known, to differ from the Latin, and English phrase, and especially from the sense of believing, that is trusting in God, which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature, which is not God.

He quoteth also Philemon, whose love & faith the Apostle commendeth towards the Lord Jesus, and towards all his Saints, where every wise man seeth that faith is referred to Christ, and love to the Saints. But the scripture reacheth him to believe (he saith) in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood. John. 14. Rom. 3. He will prove an Arian or a Nestorian shortly. The place of John proveth the divinity of Christ, because he is to be believed on, even as God. And where the Apostle saith, that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood, he meaneth not that we must believe in the blood of Christ, as it is a creature, but that the death and bloodshedding of Christ, is the mean of our reconciliation unto God. But the Nicene Creed & Hieronyme, contra Lucif. use the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam, to believe in the Church. I answer, they mean no more thereby, then they which use the distinction Credere in Deum, Credere Deo, & Credere Deum, which Bristow saith hath deceived me. Augustine (as Bristow confesseth) maketh it proper to God, that we believe in him

We believe not in Peter, we believe not in Paul. In John. 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creed, or Hieronyme contrary thereto, that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church, but in God only. Therefore although they speak otherwise then Augustine, they mean not otherwise then he. Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creed, writeth both plainly and effectually:

Nevertheless, Bristow saith, they believe both in God, in Christ and in his Saints, and invocate them all, though not all alike, but then let him hear, what Cyprian saith,

Whervpon it followeth, y ^t they which believe in saints, & place some part of their hope of felicite in thē, & not in God alone, by his judgment, & by y ^e judgment of y ^e Apostle also believe not in God. Where I said, if Saints also are to be invocated, then God alone knoweth not the hearts of all men, and God only is not to be worshipped and served, and Christ is not our only Mediator and Advocate: Bristow calleth it jangling, without allegations. I supposed these principles had been sufficiently known to every learned Papist, without allegations, but seeing Bristow will not take knowledge of them, because he knoweth not how to shift his hands of them. For the first, my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Solomon in his prayer saith unto God: What prayers or supplications shall be made of any man, or of all thy people Israel, when everyone shall know the plague in his own heart, and stretch forth his hands in this house, Hear thou then in heaven in thy dwelling place, and be merciful, and do and give every man according to all his ways as thou knowest his heart, for thou only knowest the harts of all the children of men. For the second, that God only is to be worshiped and served, it is the saying of our savior Christ, Math. 4. & Luk 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

That Christ only is our Mediator and Advocate, Saint Paul testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, in which place he speaketh of Prayer, supplications, intercessions, &c. to be made for all men. And Saint John 1. John. 2. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins. But, saith Brist, as I say to Ambrose, & others whom I confess to be of the true Church, so must I say it to Saint John Apoc. 1. for inuocating the holy Angels. But I find not that John did invocate the holy Angels, in that place, although the seven spirits from whom he wisheth grace, should not be the holy Ghost, but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost. For he that prayeth that God will send rain from heaven, doth not invocate heaven. But I must say the same to God himself, for making an Angel to be worshiped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapiter, where I have told him mine answer. likewise to the Angel Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saints, and to the 24. Seniors which had sweet odors, that is, prayers in bowles, &c. But there is no such need, the Angel Apoc. 8. representeth Christ, the only high priest that hath authority to stand at the altar in heaven, and offer incense, and to present the prayers of the Church, that they may be acceptable to God. Heb. 13. The Elders are the Church of God, in the whole world, whose prayers and supplications, only our savior Christ maketh acceptable. But it maketh nothing against our Mediator to God, saith Bristow, though we are and have never so many Mediators, so y ^t all make suite to God by him. Then it maketh no matter howe many petty God's we have, so one be principal, as Plato taught. Again he saith: it is nothing against God alone, to be worshipped, so that we worship none but for him. If this were true, it were lawful to worship the Devil, because he is God's minister, and hath great power under him: yea our Savior Christ had not answered his temptation, when he required to be worshipped, as one that had all the glory of the world committed by God to him to bestow at his pleasure, in saying it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Last of all, he saith it is nothing against God above, to know our harts, so y ^t all others know them by him. But Solomon reasoneth that God only is to be called upon, because he only knoweth the hearts of all men. And where findeth Bristow, that all others, or any one by God, knoweth the hearts of all men? To conclude, the word only, excludeth no more with Bristow, then he list to admit by his blind distinctions, which if they may be permitted against the plain sense and words of the Scriptures, nothing shall be left proper to God, nothing proper to our Savior Christ, nothing proper to anything, that the Scripture maketh peculiar unto it.

The next title is fasting, about which Bristow reporteth, that I say: Purg. 391. You are they that attend to spirits of errors, & doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, & abstaining, or commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. 1. Tim. 4. There is the brandmarke of Romish religion, that all the water in Tiberis, nor in the Ocean sea, shall not be able to wash out. Against this: Soft alitle (saith Bristow) and you shall see me draw enough & enough again, even out of your own puddle, to wash all sufficiently. But what draweth he? I confess that Arius & Jovinian condemned fasting or fasting days? what then? Abstinence from certain meats is a question distinct from fasting, which is abstinence from all meats. But Jovinian (saith he) taught abstinence from certain meats to profit nothing. Well: Arius contrariwise taught abstinence from flesh to be a religious matter, as you Papists do. For to abstain from wine, flesh, fish, spices, fruits, or anything which pertaineth to sobriety, is not to think it unlawful to eat or drink any of these, at this time, or that time, as it is thought of you Papists, and a matter of more holiness, to fill your belly with fish, then with flesh, although the fish, wyne, fruits, spices, and such like confections as you eat, be ten times more dangerous unto sobriety and chastity, then a piece of beef • or bacon, which a poor man eateth on a fryday to satisfy his hunger, and giveth God thanks for it. Your public admitting of all incentiue meats & drinks, except flesh or white meat on your fasting days, sufficiently declareth, that neither fasting nor chastisement of men's bodies is your intent: but as the Apostle saith, false speaking in hypocrisy. But whom and what doeth Saint Paul mean (saith Bristow?) He answereth, the Manichees, the Tacianistes, and other heretics, which said, that certain meats were the creatures of the devil. Nay Bristow, not them only, nor principally; but all other heretics that said, flesh was unclean, although they confessed it to be the creature of God, as the Aeriaus and Priscillianistes, and specially the Papists, which under pretence of holiness, as fasting and chastity, command to abstain from meats and marriage. For they that abstain from these things, saying they are the creatures of the devil, speak not a lie in hypocrisy, but an open blasphemy. As for the example of them, whose voluntary abstinence from meats or marriage, Saint Augustine defendeth, contra Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. cannot excuse you, which forbid meats and marriage, more imperiously to some men at all times, and to all men at sometimes, then ever the Manichees did to their clergy, or priests, which they called perfect ones.

Another saying of mine, Art. 46. Bristow repeateth: If Jovinian taught that fasting, abstinence from certain meats, and other bodily exercises, of them selves profit little, his doctrine agreeth with the doctrine of Saint Paul, 1. Timothy. 4. But if he taught, as he is charged, that such things profit nothing at all, we agree not with him in that opinion.

To this (Bristow saith) I would fain wype mine hands of Iouinians heresy, but it will not be: For his heresy was, that fasting and abstinence is not more meritorious then eating with thanksgiving. If you call this heresy, I am nothing ashamed of it: there is no more merit in the one than in the other. But howe prove you that was his heresy? Forsooth Augustine De dogm. Eccles. Cap. 68. so saith. But who shall grant unto him, that bastard collection to be of Saint Augustine's penning? Well then the undoubted Augustine, ad Quodvult enim saith: meritis adaequabat, he made equal to the merits, of chaste and faithful matrimonies, the virginity, &c.

But he that is acquainted with Saint Augustine's writings, shall perceive that by merits, often times he meaneth not as the Papists do, the desert of good works, but y ^e dignity, excellency, commendation. For merits in that signification as the Papists use, he always condemneth them in the Pelagians, and all other, saying that God crowneth or rewardeth in us his gifts, not our merits. For our merits are nothing but sins in Psal. 70. Con. 2. in Psa. 101. in Psa. 144.

Now have we to see, what Saint Paul calleth bodily exercise. Bristow saith: walking, ryding, hunting, hawking, and such like exercises, used for preservation of men's bodies. And think you Timothy, which to chastise his body, used to abstain from wine, was doubted of S. Paul, lest he should give him self overmuch to walking, riding, hawking, hunting? At least wise, hear what S. Ambrose writeth upon the text,

Let Bristow s • ye, that S Ambrose knew not white from black, as he saith of me, and look better to his conference, of S. Paul's abstinence, 1. Cor. 9. from all things y ^e were offensive. But where he concludeth, the measure of all abstinence is to tame the body, and bring it in subjection to the spirit, but with such moderation, that it faint not in our necessary work, I agree with him, that so it ought to be, but that so it is not, nor yet intended in the popish commaundment of abstinence, as I have shown before sufficiently: As for the fasting of y ^t children of the bridegroom, like to the fasts prescribed by the disciples of Saint John, and of the Pharisees, it is impertinent to speak of, where y ^e question is not of Christian fasting, but of apostatical abstinence from meats and marriage: although Christian fasting, is nothing like to the Pharisaical fasting, but only in refraining from meat, in the ende and manner altogether differing and unlike. Math. 6. Luke. 18.

Of the Sacraments in general, I say: Pur. 450. We • eleeue that there are but two sacraments of the new • estament, baptism, and the Lord's supper, instituted by Christ. 1. Cor. 10. Bristow asketh, if these be sacraments of the new testament instituted by Christ, which Saint Paul speaketh of baptism in the cloud and s •• , and of the spiritual meat and drink in Manna and the rock. Because he doeth only ask, it shall suffice to answer only, yea, they are sacraments of the new testament, and instituted by Christ, the mediator of the new testament, by which our fathers were saved, although by Christ coming in the flesh, they were • nstituted differing somewhat in external form and matter, though in inward grace and signification they were all one.

Secondly, supposing they are sacraments of the new • estament, by Christ instituted, he asketh what reason • t is, to argue of one place negatively, only two are • amed, ergo only two are instituted. I answer, the argument is not of the only naming of two, but of the whole argument of the Apostle, which is, to prove, that • he fathers in participation of the sacraments, were equal with us, which were not sufficiently proved, if having named only two, there were other five, wherein we are superior to them: So that the naming of two, is in this place the excluding of all other except those two. Now let us discuss Bristowes reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seven. We read of the other five in other places. Where I pray you? Of Confirmation, John the 7. You read more then I can find there named or signified, except you mean of the increase of God's spirit in more excellent and evident graces, which the faithful should receive after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, which differeth far from confirmation of children by imposition of hands.

Of Penance, you read John. 20. Of power given to the Apostles to remit and retain sins: I read but of 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 auricular confession and satisfaction, I read not.

Of extreme unction, you read Iac. 5: of anointing the sick with oil, which by a special gift recovered health of body, as well as remission of sins, at the prayer of the faithful, I read: but of anealing men desperately sick, which hath no hope of bodily recovery, I read not.

Of orders, you read, Math. 26. but I read nothing at all, although I read that the Apostles were commanded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him, which were before ministers of his sacraments and preachers of his word; but of Bennet and Collet, conjurer, subdeacon, or mass priest, I read not in all the Scripture, nor of Deacon in that Chapter.

Of Matrimony, both yet and I read Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ, but long before in Paradise, and is no more a sacrament of the new testament, then the raynebowe, which yet with the covenant thereof remaineth in use among Christians. But you confess you read not in those places, that they are sacraments, no more do you read, 1. Cor. 10. that baptism, or the Lord's supper are sacraments or anywhere else. This is a stale quarrel, of the name of sacraments, which is not found in Scripture, although the thing signified by the name, that is y ^e seals of God's promises, and the name of sign of God's covenants be often found.

But your last refuge is, that the Apostle speaketh only of the first entrance into Christianity, which in antiquity was by baptism, confirmation, the complement of baptism, and the Euchariste, and therefore speaketh not of the rest. Beside that this fantasie is manifestly contrary to the Apostles purpose, which was to show, that the external sacraments of God's grace, without a godly life, would not serve to assure us, that God was pleased withvs: it is clear, that the Corinthians, among whom Saint Paul so long had preached, could not be without all other sacraments, if any other were. They had children to be confirmed, they themselves were married, elders were to be ordered, offenders by penance were to be reconciled, many were sick, and some were fallen a sleep, to be anealed. And Saint Paul saith expressly, they were behind in no grace or gift of God's spirit. 1. Corinth. 1. Wherefore, that they were young novices newely entered the bars, and not knights exercised in battle, it is a dream of Bristowes drowsi • head, and no truth to be verified of the Corinthians.

Secondly I say, of the sacraments in general, that they give not grace ex opere operato, of the work wrought, but after the faith of the receiver and according to the election of Go • . 〈◊〉 . Corin. 10. Again, howe should the sacrament give grace of the work wrought, if faith were requisite in them that receive them? This argument, saith Bristow, holdeth as well against the working of Christ's passion. Why sir, the passiō of Christ giveth not grace, but to the faithful and elect of God.

But faith, you say, is no work, nor instrument, but only a dispofition as dryness in wodde, that the fire worketh upon. I will not enter into any philosophical disputation with you, whether it be dryness or moisture in the wodde that the fire worketh upon, perhaps you think, that water is moyster then air, which error, if you had no more, cannot make you an heretic.

But I marvel, what cause you will make faith, seeing you exclude it from efficients, except you make it a matter, for the sacraments to work upon, or else I know not what you mean by y ^t your disposition like drienesse in wood, which in deed is the thin air, more apt to receive inflammations, then the thick water, but perhaps you make it only a potentia, like materia prima, for you add, that by our indisposition we do not put obicem.

But you hold that the sacraments give grace of the work wrought, without the good motion of the vser, only so he do no part obicem, that is, so he do not withstand the working, as if a man be baptized sleeping, and thinking nothing of it. Nevertheless seeing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in us by faith, faith must needs be an instrumental efficient, when you have said all that you can, except you will teach us new gramer and Logike. You confess the scripture saith, that by believing and other good actions, we work our own salvation, Phil. 2. as by way of meriting, but it saith not that we work the effect of any sacrament: neither do I say, that we work the effect of any sacrament, but that God worketh in us according to faith, which he giveth us, and his election. You say further; that the scripture teacheth, that the passion of Christ giveth to our deeds virtue to merit: where is that scripture written? for until you show me where it is written, I will say still to you as I said to Allen, y ^e Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemy, believing steadfastly, that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemptiō of Christ Jesus, without respect of our works. Rom. 3. 4.

But yet Bristow will make men believe, that I show manifold ignorance, where I say Purg. 35. The mean on God's behalf by which we are made partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion, and so graffed into his body, is his holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritance: who worketh in us faith, as the only mean by which the righteousness of Christ is applied unto us, Ephe. 1. And as for the sacraments, (which you seem to make the only conduites of God's mercy) we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seals of God's promises given for the confirmation of our faith, as was circumcision to Abraham, when he was justified before through faith. Rom. 4.

Bristowes eyes being daseled at the clear light of this truth, turneth his head away from the matter, and wrangleth against diverse points of Caluinisme, as he saith, but in deed of mere Bristowisme. For Calvin never held any such matter as he imagineth: He asketh whether this be to say, that all men are justified before they come to the sacrament, as though Calvin said they were. Whereas a great number are justified neither before, nor after the receipt of them. But this is to say, that as Abraham was justified by faith, without respect of the sacrament, so are all they that are justified, justified by faith, without respect of the sacrament. Secondly he asketh, whether all sacraments be seals of such a matter. Yea verily, or else saint Paul proveth the justification of the Gentiles by faith, very feebly, after the example of Abraham. Thirdly he asketh whether all Jews were justified, before they came to circumcision, which I never heard any man to affirm, but that as many Jews as were justified, were justified by faith, as Abraham was, circumcision no more regarded in their justification, then it was in the justification of Abraham. Last of all he asketh, whether circumcision were to the Jews a seal of such a matter? still he calleth it such a matter, because he dare not name justification by faith. O the stinge of a wicked conscience. But to the question. I answer that to y ^e Jews which were justified by faith, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, which is imputed to them, as it was to Abraham without merit, or respect of their circumcision.

Other pointes of mine ignorance, he saith, are about the holy spirit of promise, whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the mean, to make us partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion: Item the mean to graff us into his body: Item, that it worketh in us faith. In the conclusion, he noteth the ignorance of the Protestants, where they hold, this spirit promised to be nothing else, but the gift of tongues, that is to say, Christ's greatest gift, to be his least gift. Out upon the shameless liar, which of the Protestants canst thou name, that so holdeth? We all hold that the holy spirit of promise, Ephes. 1. is the spirit of adoption, by which we are assured of eternal life. Rom. 8. And as for the spirit, prophesied by Joel, and John the Baptist, promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension, we hold not to be specially of the spirit of adoption, which the Apostles & all y ^e faithful had before Christ's death, and much less of that spirit, which your Bishops give by imposition of hands, in their counterfeit confirmation, which is the spirit of vanity, whose fruits appear not in any of the receivers: But we hold that promised gift of God's spirit, to be that wonderful revelation of knowledge and understanding & vtterāce in all states & degrees of true Christians generally, beside a great number of particular gifts, not perpetual, bestowed upon the Church in diverse special members, for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel. As for your conference of scriptures, whereof you prate so much, is a mere confusion of matters of diverse senses. According to which manner of conference, not weighing the sense of every place, by the proper circumstances thereof, but following only a sound and similitude of some words, every heretic might color his heresy, were it never so absurd, as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth, that they patched diverse sentences together, to make a show, as though their heresy were contained in holy write: which was nothing else, but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in pieces, should of the piece after his own manner joined together, make the image of a dog, or a fox or other foul beast, Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirit of promise, wherewith the faithful are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirit of tongues and prophecy which came upon the twelve, on whom saint Paul laid his hands. Acts 19. The last error of faith he chargeth me, to be the only mean, which he saith, is no mean but a disposition, he thinketh it sufficiently discovered before, whereunto I also think that I have made answer sufficiently.

Concerning baptism, I say it is necessary for all Christians to receive, that are not by necessity excluded from it. 1. Pet. 3. Bristow saith, it is necessary for all men, but when it cannot be actually had, the effectual desire of it supplieth the want: which desire infantes have not, and therefore only the actual having of baptism, doth quicken them in Christ, being dead in Adam. Touching the salvation of infants of the faithful dying without baptism, I said nothing but by implication, that there is no such necessity of Baptism, that the want of the outward sacrament should condemn the seed of the faithful, pertaining to gods election & covenant, where there is no default, either of contempt or neglect of it. Ro. 9. Ge. 17. And seeing Bristow alloweth y ^e effectual desire in men of years to supply the want, which yet y ^e words of his text, I am. 3. of which he taketh color and authority of his doctors, that condemn all unbaptized infants will not bear, what reason is it, why he should not extend his supply, unto the effectual desire of those infants, parents, and friends, whose faith he acknoledgeth to supply the want of actual faith in the infants that are baptized? Beside this he saith that he did mark well enough where I said y ^t the sacraments give grace according to y ^e election of God. As though all infants baptized, & so dying be not of God's elect, or that some be not saved, although they be baptized, & asketh what scripture I have for this geere? But in deed he bow leth at the wrong mark, for in saying y ^t the sacraments took effect according to y ^e faith of y ^e receiver and according to gods election, I meant, y ^t God in baptism giveth grace to infants, which have no actual faith of their own, according to his eternal electiō in mercy. But whether all infants baptized & so dying be of y ^e mumber of gods elect, as I do not know, so I will not contend. But this I know, that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laid, the receiving of baptism, cannot make them God's elect. Ephe. 1. Where Bristow urgeth the saying of saint Peter, 1. Pet. 3. baptism saveth us now, it is a weak argument to prove the baptism of infants, either to save them all that receive it, or to condemn all that receiveth it not. For explicating him self of what baptism he speaketh, he addeth, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as you would say, outward washing, which is the external sacrament, but the interrogation of a good conscience towards God, which is the thing signified by outward washing, and yet not found in infantes, but in them that have knowledge, among whom, whosoever hath it not, he shall no more be saved then any was preserved from drowning that was not in the Ark of Noah. In which Ark one at lease was saved from bodily drowning, which was not inwardly baptized with the spirit unto salvation. The figure of whom, I might urge as probable as Bristow doth of the whole number saved, from drowning, like unto whom all they that are baptized are brought into the visible Church, although some with Cham, are not members of the mystical body of Christ.

Touching the Eucharist I said, Christ is present at his supper, but not after a gross and Capernaicall manner but as he was present in Manna to the fathers. 1. Cor. 10. Bristowes answer is, it was a spiritual meat, a spiritual drink, for it signified Christ. But Saint Paul saith expressly it was Christ, and the Rock was Christ. But, est, is, taken for significat, where it pleaseth the Papists, where it pleaseth them not, it is blasphemy, impudency, falsification &c. Further he saith, they all did eat one, and the same meat, but not that they and we eat one, & the same meat. Although Saint Augustine is clear, they did eat one, and the same that we eat, yet I will prove it by argument out of the Scripture, that which we eat and that which they did eat was, & is Christ, ergo they and we eat one and the same meat, even as they were baptized with the same baptism: for the church of God never had but one baptism. As for the Capernaites, he saith, I understand not the chapter, John 6. and so only telleth his fantasie upon it. But what mine understanding is of that chapter, & also mine answer to all popish reasons, falsely gathered thereout: let it appear in my confutation of Heskins & Sanders.

Concerning transubstantiation, I said, Of all follyes this is the greatest, that when the Papists have prated never so long of the sacrifice of bread and wine, at the last they will have no bread nor wine in their sacrifice. First he saith, this wise argument, proveth the papists & their fathers the old writers, to be fools. To this I reply, those old writers, which are none of the papists fathers, although they supposed Melchizedechs bread and wine, to be a figure of our sacrament, yet they were not such fools to deny bread and wine to remain in our sacrament. But for answer, Bristow saith, that I myself confess, y ^t the drink of the water of the rock, was a figure of our drink in Christ's Chalice, although that were water, & this is no water, no nor made of water, how much more, might Melchizedechs bread and wine be a figure of it, although there be no bread nor wine in it, considering it was made of bread and wine, and retaineth the forms of bread and wine? &c. But where hath he this confession of mine? I never said the water of the Rock was a figure of Christ's cup, but even Christ's cup it self, and the very blood of Christ in a sacrament, to the faithful, as the wine in the cup is to us. For Christ did even then feed his true members with his flesh & blood unto eternal life. John. 6.

Because we say, the marriage of votaries is sin and no marriage. Fulke saith, we are the forbidders of marriage, that saint Paul speaketh off. 1. Tim. 4. But this saith Bristow, I have shown to pertain to the Eucratites, & Manichees &c. and I have shown that it pertaineth more properly to the Papists. But saint Augustine answereth them & Fulke at once, saith Bristow,

Well, if he forbid to marry and to teache the doctrine of Devils, which saith marriage is a naughty thing, then you Papists, which (as you confessed before) say that the marriage of votarics is sin, say it is a naughty thing, and consequently forbidding to marry do teache the doctrine of Devils: neither can you shift a way to say, you do not affirm, that which is marriage indeed, to be a sin but that which is falsely called marriage: for you say even as the Manichees in this point, it is a naughty thing, for the Clergy, and them that be in holy orders to marry, and therefore you compel them to the vow, and forbid marriage to all that will enter into those orders, and also into moonkery, which you call religion, as though holiness and religion could not stand with marriage. And therefore to you, as well as to the Manichees Saint Augustine speaketh in the. 4. Chapter of that Book, in defense of the catholic Church which in his time forbadde not marriage, nor compelled any to virginity. As for the preferring of virginity, in them that have the gift, and for whom it is convenient, for setting forth of the kingdom of God, before marriage, according to the doctrine of Saint Paul, we agree with Saint Augustine and dissent from Jovinian, if his doctrine were as it is reported. But if Jovinian taught (as I said) Ar. 45. that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity, should nevertheless be married, this was the doctrine of Saint Paul, it is better to marry then to burn. And although Ambrose & Augustine, account such marriage to be adultery, or worse then adultery, yet the holy Ghost saith: marriage is honorable in all men and the bed undefiled. Heb. 13. And for them that cannot contain, although they have vowed virginity, it is better to marry then to burn, 1. Cor. 7. except Bristow think it better to quench the fire of lust, with fornication and uncleanness: For all men cannot contain, neither can all men make them selves chaste for the kingdom of God. Math 19, But this conference of Scripture pleaseth not Bristow, for he counteth it none at all, comparing me for want of conference of scripture to a cloud without water: well then, let us hear what sweet dew cometh from Bristowes cloud.

First he asketh what it is to burn. He answereth, to be troubled with the pricking of the flesh, say the heretics.

First he belieth us, whom he calleth heretics, to say that to burn, is nothing else but to be troubled with the pricking of the flesh: for we hold, there is no praise of virginity, where there is no natural provocation unto lust. But to burn we say, is to be so troubled, as men are, that are inflamed with lust, and have no lawful means to quench the same.

Secondly, behold howe shamefully he slandereth Saint Paul, to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh, where he complaineth of the general rebellion of the flesh, against the spirit, the messenger of Satan to buffet him, even that law of his members, of which he complaineth Rom. 7. which brought him captive under the law of sin. As for that pricking, which Bristow speaketh of to be so much in a body so exercised with afflictions and travels, with hunger, and fastings, and in a man of such age, as Saint Paul was at that time, when he wrote unto the Corinthians the second Epistle, it is altogether incredible. And confessing a general rebellion of the flesh, against the spirit unto all sin, it is not probable that he should in this place, complain of that one kind only, from which age and weakness of body would privilege him, if godly exercise did not rid him. What is it then to burn, saith Bristow, or to be burned? saint Paul himself telleth us, it is, not to contain: If they do not contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn, for marriage is honorable and undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. The conference whereof is this: Let married folk use their own bed, &c. and let the unmarried folk enter into marriage, rather then not to contain, to burn, to commit fornication. So that to burn, not to contain, and to commit fornication, by Bristowes conference, is all one: So that he which committeth not fornication, although he be continually inflamed with filthy lust, yet by Bristowes judgment, he burneth not, he is continent, he is a virgins. Again, if not to contain, and to burn be nothing else, but to commit fornication, it would follow in saint Paul's words, that men are not commanded to marry, before they have made trial of their incontinence by committing fornication, which seeing it is horrible absurdity: it followeth, that the Apostle to prevent fornication, exhorting men to marry which contain not, seeing it is better to marry then to burn, understandeth incontinence and burning, for an inflāmation of lust, without fornication, or actual filthiness committed.

But whatsoever saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that do not contain, he meaneth it of such as have made no vow to live unmarried. For of those that have vowed, his sentence is (saith Bristow) that they incur damnation if they marry, because they have broken their first faith: 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine he understandeth for their last vow of widowhood, notwithstanding, that I shown, both by conference in the same chapter, by the title of, first, and by the name of faith, that it cannot properly be so taken, but for the faith of Christianity, even as he saith: if any provide not for his family, he hath denied the faith. Where I find the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the scripture is never used for a vow or promise made to God. Bristow answereth, why? do not you say yourself, that both there & once afore in y ^e same chapt. it is used for y ^e vow or promise made in baptism? no sir. I never said it. I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptism, and Christianity, except you will say that the faith of Christianity embraced by baptism, is nothing else but a vow or promise made to God. Again, can you remember never a place (saith he) where the faith of god is the promise of God? look Rom. 3. yea sir, I remember 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taken for the truth of God's promise, but I find not yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taken for the vow or promise made to God, which because you yourself, so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures, could not find, you cur • olled my saying, repeating my words for a vow or promise, and leaving out that I added, made to God. The Latin phrase of the faith or promise of marriage used by Saint Augustine and other Latin writers, answereth not to my demand, of the use of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the scriptures: which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission, it is more like he would have called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their former faith, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their first faith. Again the conference which Bristow urgeth, of them that are already turned back after Satan, most aptely agreeth to thē that had forsaken not only their widowhood, but also their Christianity, Loe, saith Bristow, yourself are compelled to grant, that which you denied, to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhoode? and how forsake they widowhoode but by marrying? ergo, Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying: so invincible is the text, in our exposition. Fulke, it goeth hard with you. And all this, because I said such wanton young huswiues, proceed so far, that at length they forsake widowhood, Christianity and all. Saide I only because they forsake widowhoode? No, but because they wax wanton against Christ, because they have forsaken the first faith, which is Christianity, and not only because they have married, and given over their widowhoode: whereof whether there were a vow or no, it is not proved. Although it be probable, there was a promise made unto the Church, because such poor widows sustained of the Churches alms, were employed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons. Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sick and impotent, that men should be collectors and distributers of the alms, but womē also were necessary, for diverse services about them which were not convenient for men to exercise. But if I should grant unto you, that the first faith here, signifieth the last vow of widowhoode, yet it followeth not of this place, that all that have married after rash vows made to the contrary, are damned. For Saint Paul speaketh not of them that were constrained by the necessity of incontinency (which it is not every man's gift to avoid) to fly to the general remedy appointed by God, for avoiding of fornication, that every man should have his wife, and every woman should have her husband, without any exception: but only of them he speaketh, y ^t waxed wanton against Christ, which being living to the world, were dead to God. What is this against them, which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vow to perform, that which they were not able? namely continence or chastity, without marriage, the breach whereof is not only by marriage, but much more by fornication and uncleanness, yea by continual burning, without actual filthiness, which with Saint Paul is incontinence.

And yet the Papists, as though there were no way to break such vow, but by marriage, which is the best mean of chastity, for them that cannot be chaste in single life, cry out damnatiō only against married votaries, affirming that infinite whoredoms and uncleanness, are less breach of vow, then marriage, and the marriage of votaries to be no marriage. Yet Saint Ambrose, who counteth it an adultery against Christ, for a vowed virgins to marry, counteth the marriage of such a one, in respect of her bodily husband to be lawful matrimony, and a much less fault, to enter into marriage, then once to committee fornication. Ad Virg. Laps. Cap. 5. And more plainly Saint Augustine which counteth the marriages of such, of whom the Apostle speaketh to be worse then adulteries, in respect of the breach of their vow, made to Christ: yet counteth them to be marriages, and no adulteries, and detesteth the separation of such married persons, De bono Vid • . Cap. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Where Allen railing against our Bishops, and as he termeth our disordered new ministry, saith, that ere ever they be well warmed in their benisices, they must for the most part, as it were Annexum ordini, have a wife. I answered, Belyke Saint Paul taketh marriage to be so annexed to the order of an ecclesiastical minister, y ^t he never describeth the perfect pattern of a Bishop or Deacon, but one of the first pointes is, that he be the husband of one wife. Bristow saith, I allege the text to salve our Bishops itching lust: and more blasphemously speaketh Allen against our ministers marriage, whom yet they account to be but lay men. Where are they now that say marriage is a naughty thing? But concerning the term of Annexum ordini, although I said in derision thereof, Belyke, &c. as before, yet I meant not, that it was necessary for every perfect minister to be married, but that none is more perfect, then they that are married. Notwithstanding some men considering that the Apostle requireth hospitality, that is the charitable entertainment of poor strangers, as a special virtue in a Bishoppe or minister of the Church, think marriage to be more convenient then sole life, for that degree, because diverse partes of hospitality, of which Saint Paul maketh, the washinge of the Saints feet, one, and such like, are not convenient but for women to exercise, whom it were inconvenient, that a Bishop should keep in his house, and not be a married man. But Bristow will teache me to understand, what Saint Paul meaneth by the husband of one wife, by conference of that place. 1. Tim. 5. where he will have a widow to be chosen, such a one, quae fuit vnius viri vx • r, as hath been the wife of one husband: so that he requireth in a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, to be made, that he have had only one wife. Indeed Bristow: I learn by this conference, that Saint Paul who knew how to write his mind in Greek, although he had not spoken expressly of the behavior of Bishops, and Deacons wives. 1. Tim. 3. yet using the present temps, in speaking of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, to be the husband of one wife, & the preterperfect temps, in speaking of widows, which have had one husband did mean, that he requireth such a one to be made Bishop, Elder or Deacon, which presently hath a wife: and not which had a wife, that at the time of their election were dead, as the widows husband. It behooveth a Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, sober, &c. except you will likewise say, a Bishop must be such a one, as hath been sober, &c. although he be not so now. Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let Deacons be the husbands of one wife. And again Tit. 1. • i 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if any man is vnreprehensible, the husband of one wife. Therefore a Bishoppe, Elder, or Deacon, may be he, that hath a wife, presently, and not he that hath had one which is dead, only. Moreover I learn by conference of that place, 1. Tim. 5. that Polygamie, which is many wives at one time, is forbidden a Bishop, and not second marriage, as it hathben commonly and of old time taken of many: seeing there is no reason to exclude a poor widow from alms and office in the Church, that hath lived continently with more husbands then one, so that she have kept her to one at one time: But it is not meet, that she should be elected to an office in the Church, which hath been an adulteress, or unlawfully divorced from her husband, hath married another, although she may be relieved by alms, if she be penitent.

But Bristow would have men to mark it well, that yet never from the Apostles time, to this day, any one Bishoppe or Prieste, that is confessed to have been a good one, did marry afterwards, no not Jovinian him self. He would fain if he durst, say that no Bishoppe or Priest had a wife: but that were easily refelled out of Eusebius and all ancient histories. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. showeth that the Apostles Peter and Philip, had wives and did beget children. Also he saith of Saint Paul,

Seeing therefore he putteth no difference in respect of matrimony, between a Laye man, and a Clergy man, it is plain, that it was as lawful for Elders and Deacons to marry in his time, as for Lay men. Again the same Clemens saith against them that denied the lawfulness of generation, after he had cited diverse texts of Scripture. Therefore he saith, that all things are clean to the clean. Seeing therefore that marriage is as free by his judgment by the New Testament, as by the law, and Aaron's Priests, were at liberty to marry, no man need to doubt, but the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Christ, are at as great liberty, and using their liberty in his time, were allowed for good ones.

Long after his time, the council of Gangra in their Epistle to the Bishops of Armenia complain of Eustachius and his sect, saying,

Therefore these catholic Bishops thought those Priests good ones, which did join them selves in matrimony, & so they made their Canon: Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane council decreeth Cap. 10.

Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist, 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Iuo: lib 4. allowing the tradition of the orientall Churches for marriage of their Church ministers.

It were hard if there were never a good one among all the Clergy of the East Churches, since the Apostles time, which have ben married and yet are.

To conclude, I trust it is apparent to the indifferent reader, that such texts of Scripture as I alleged in those two books, which Bristow undertaketh in this confuse manner to confute, were rightly applied, and without all violence or wresting, do prove sufficiently that for which they were called to witness. And as for the popish conference of Scriptures, whereof Bristow once again with great lothsomnesse doeth brag, how sound it is, you may perceive by this example, & taste, given by him in this Chapter. Wherefore I marvel much what learned ministers of our church these were, whom Bristow affirmeth (being in number more then a dozen, and diverse of no vulgar wits) by their only hearing of your conference of scriptures to have become papists. By like some vagabonde, irregular, and dishonest persons, being deprived of their ministry for their ungodly behavior, have sought favor among them by revolting, or at least counterfeiting to be revolted to papistry, when they be of no religion, commended by Bristow for their wits, but neither for their honesty nor learning.

CAP. IX.

The first part of his doctors, generally his challenging words.

I confess not the doctors to be yours in very many points, nor simply in few pointes, nor all in any point of controversy, but granting that for a few errors, which you have common with them, in which you also far exceed them, as in prayers for the dead, prayers to saints, some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies, I affirm that in the greatest and chiefest pointes of controversy, they are either all with us, or not one against us.

2 A general answer to his challenge, declaring that 〈◊〉 need not to answer his doctors particularly.

His first reason is, because I said: we stand for authority only to the judgment of the holy scriptures, which scriptures in the chapter going before, he hath satisfied. But how he hath satisfied them, let the indifferent readers judge. And seeing the Papists offer to stand to their judgment in all things, and we refuse them not as witnesses unto the truth, in most things, he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors.

His second reason is, for y ^t I do answer all mine own doctors for him, if it be well considered: & what is your consideration? In that I confess them to have held with you the very same points, for which we must be condemned (no remedy) as differing from the doctors in the greatest pointes. What are those I pray you? Bristow answereth. For why doeth he say, that we are against the honor of God, & against the offices of Christ, but because we hold invocation of saints, and worshipping of their relics? yes sir, for other more gross idolatry and defacing of the kingdom, priesthood, and prophetical office of Christ, and for holding these two pointes more absurdly and grossly then any of the doctors did. Again, why doth he say, that we are against the authority of God's word, but because we hold with traditions, as the doctors did? I answer, the doctors held with no traditions that were proved to be against the written word of God, they made not the decrees of Councils and Popes, of equal authority with the word of God as you do.

But of one of the greatest pointes he repeateth my words, in which I say expressly: I confess with M. Allen, that the old writers, not only knew, but also have expressed the value of our redemption by Christ, in such words, as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stand with them. And yet on the other side (saith Bristow) see what followeth immediately. Against the value of which redemption, if they have uttered any thing, by the word of satisfaction, or anything else, we may lawfully reject their authority, not only though they be doctors of the church, but also if they were angels from heaven. But what I pray you concludeth Bristow of these two sayings. His words follow immediately: So that now we no more need to defend against him, that we are not contrary to the doctors, then that the doctors are not contrary to them selves. As though it were impossible for men to be contrary to themselves. And yet I say no more of them, then of the angels, that they are contrary to the truth in this point, but that if they were, we might reject them as lawfully as the angels, if they brought another gospel. Last of all he saith: We need not defend that we are contrary to our selves in the same. For in what words the doctors speak thereof, the same do we. Neither is the antecedent true, nor if it were, doth the argument follow. For you will not say as the old writers do, that through the redemption of Christ, a man is justified before God by faith only. without respect of his works or merits. And where you use the doctors words, you either use them in a contrary sense, or else elude them with additions & distinctions, neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the old doctors, but invented out of your own heretical brains. After which manner it is easy to defend that they say nothing against any heresy, which they do not condemn by name, although they plainly aduouche the truth, against such error.

3 I ioygne with him nevertheless particularly.

Although they ascribe not infallibility to a few, but only to the uniform consent of the doctors, yet he is content to join upon this issue, that the protestants have not against them for any one article at all, so much as any one doctor at all. Howe he auoydeth mine evidence, you shall see in that which followeth:

The second parte. Of his doctors particularly: First, whether they expound any scripture against us.

As touching antichrist, I said, Pur. 249. The seat of antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church according to the revelation of Saint John, and the exposition of Irenaeus, who judged y ^t Lateinos was y ^t number of y ^e beasts name spokē of Apoc. 13. To this Bristo •• answereth, here are two ragged conclusions. The first, antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church, ergo the Pope of Rome is antichrist. No sir, I made no such argument, but of the authority of Irenaeus I proved, that the seat of antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church, and therefore superstition was somewhat forwarder then in the Greek church. The other conclusion (saith Bristow) is this: Irenaeus judged that Lateinos should be the name of antichrist, (as Jesus was and is the name of Christ) ergo, he judged that antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church: I answer, the antecedent is yours Master Bristow, and not mine. For I said not, that Irenaeus judged that Lateinus should be the name of antichrist, as Jesus is the name of Christ, as though antichrist should be a singular man: For Irenaeus saith it, in respect of his kingdom, which should be in the Latin part of the world: V • lde verisimile est, quoniam verissimum regnum hoc hab •• vocabulum. It is very like, because the moste true kingdom hath that name, which was the kingdom of the Romans. Therefore we must seek in the Roman kingdom for antichist: in which kingdom have reigned hitherto Emperors and Popes. Emperors have been heathenish & Christened: the heathenish it could not be, because antichrist must sit in the Church, and they were altogether without. Of the Emperors, some were Catholic, and some heretical. The Catholic no man will charge: the heretical Emperors were no false Prophets, as antichrist must be a false teacher, that with lying signs and wonders shall deceive the world: wherefore it remaineth that of all that have hitherto reigned in the Latin Empire, the Pope must be that principal antichrist. For Calvin and Luther, whom Bristow fondly nameth to be in the Latin Church) never bare rule in the Latin kingdom. Bristowes last refuge is, that Irenaeus did not so judge. He only saith, it is very like to be so. I ask no more but his judgment of the likelyhod: For I know he reciteth other names, which have in them the same number, as Euan, Teitan, and in the ende will pronounce certainly of none, holding, that it is better to expect the fulfilling of the Prophecy, then to pronounce rashly of any. But seeing antichrist is already revealed, and all the prophecy of his apostasy and seduction accomplished, we doubt not to join to that ancient likelyhod of Irenaeus, the later likelyhodes of the same name agreeing in number with Lateinos in Greek, Romiith in Hebrew, not neglecting Ecclesia Italica. The consent of all which names, signifying the region, the city, the kingdom, bear so hard upon the Pope & the popish church of Rome, that Bristow, though he lay both his shoulders to it, shall never be able to remove it.

Secondly I said of Jerome, Pur. 373. He was not such a slave to the church of Rome, y ^t whatsoever pleased the bishops of that see, he was ready to accept: For then he would not have been so bold to call Rome the purple whore of Babylon, Praef. ad Paul. in lib. Didym. Bristow replieth: as though when he calleth Rome so, or when Augustine calleth it the Western Babylon, they mean the church of Rome. I said not they mean the church of Rome, as it was in their time, but that antichrist should sit at Rome, whom the scripture saith, must sit in the temple or Church of God, 2. Thes. 2. Neither doeth Augustine mean it of the empire, but of antichrist, which should arise in the Roman empire. Neither doeth Jerome mean of y ^e Paganism of Rome, that remained in his time, which in y ^e place by Brist. cited ad Marcell. Ep. 16. he testifieth to have ben trovnder feet, but of the purple whore sitting aloft, upon the rose coulered beast, of the wine of whose fornication, all nations were made drunken, of the blasphemy written in her forehead, of the seven hills &c. although in his time, he confess there was the church of God, the tryumphe of the Apostles and Martyrs, &c. & gentilitate calcata & Gentilitie being troaden under feet, the Christian name daily lifting it self aloft. But that Jerome in doubts did seek for resolution of Damasus bishop of Rome, and that all other must likewise do. Bristow citeth his Epistle ad Damasum. To 〈…〉 . 2. in which he consulteth with Damasus, whether he should use the name of Hippostasis, and saith further, that whosoever gathereth not with Damasus, doth scatter: that is to say, whoso is not Christ's is antichrists, I answer, all this was well, so long as Damasus was a Catholic bishop, but that Saint Jerome was not ready to accept whatsoever it pleased the bishop of Rome, it is manifest by that he affirmeth Liberius to have subscribed to the Arians, in Catal. script. which he would never have done, if he had thought it impossible for the bishop of Rome to err, or necessary for him to follow the bishop of Rome's doctrine in all things. The place cited ad Damasum with answer to it, is in my confutation of Saunders Rock, Cap. 15. And therefore the saying of Leo Epist. 89. That Christ took Peter into the participation of the undivided unity, proveth not, that it is all one to be Peters and to be Christ's, when Peter erreth from Christ, and much less, that it is all one (as Bristow saith) to be in unity with Peter and his successors, meaning the Popes, and to be in unity with Christ, from whom, not only all Popes in matter now of controversy do. But diverse of the Bishops & Popes of Rome have been divided into horrible and confessed errors and heresies, of both partes: as Gentilism, Arianism, Eu • ichianisme, Menothelitisme, Sadduceisme.

Again, I said Pur. 320. Which of your prelates will follow Ambrose in his commentary vpō the Apocalypse, where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the city of Rome? whose words Bristow will recite for me. This whore doth betoken in some places Rome in special, which then did persecute y ^e church of God: in some places in general, the city of the devil, that is to say, the whole body of the reprobate. Bristow asketh if it be not a perilous point to touch the city of Rome in saint John's time, when it did persecute the church of Rome? As though S. John telleth a story of his own time, and not a prophecy of the time to come. Ambrose therefore, or whosoever writeth that commentary, interpreteth that prophecy, Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the city of Rome: which was not only of persecution, but of seduction. But the undoubted Ambrose (if you remember, saith Bristow) of the church of Rome saith: In all things I covet to follow the Roman church, De sac. lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bound to follow the church of Rome, he saith immediately after:

In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in y ^t they used not to wash men's feet in baptism. Vniustly indeed, he urgeth that ceremony as necessary, but yet he showeth, that his judgment was, that the church of Rome might receive a custom contrary to y ^• scripture.

Beside this (saith Bristow) he calleth Peter the first & the foundation in the very same place, where say you, Pur. 320 he affirmeth, that Peter is not the foundation. Howsoever I deal with my reader, you deal unfaithfully with me: for my words are these: He affirmeth y ^e not Peter, but the faith & the confession of Peter, is the foundation of the church: and that the primacy of Peter was a primacy of faith, not of honor, of confession, not of authority or higher order. De incaern. dom. Ca. 4. & 5. Ambrose his words are, Cap. 4.

The former of these places, Brist. corrupteth by adding this word, worldly, to the words of Ambrose, honor, & degree, a • though Ambrose had meant, that Peter excelled in eccle siasticall honor & degree, being equal to his fellows in worldly honor and degree. But such folly was far frō Ambrose, to say Peter was not better then the rest of the Apostles in worldly honor & degree, when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honor or degree of dignity at all. But he expresseth wherein all his primacy was, when he saith, he was first in confession, first in protestation of his faith, not being therefore of greater honor or higher degree then his fellows, who all held the same faith and confession. And this of Peters person, never a word of his successors, which yet are not only the bishops of Rome, when they were at the best, but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles, Jerome, Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places, in which the Apostles sat in person, but by authority of teaching received from them with soundness of doctrine.

To the later place (Bristow saith) the devil may prevail against the flesh of a Pope: but his faith, but his confession (as well in all articles that be now in controversy, as in those at that time) will stand, when they shall all be sonke down into their due place. But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of every bishop of Rome's faith and confession, but only of the singular faith and confession of Peter: Thou art Christ the son of the living God, which is against all sects and heresies.

Let now the reader judge, whether of us hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose.

Fourthly he gathereth, that I say in diverse places: that Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, Alexandrinus, Cyprianus, the Council of Africa, and Socrates the historiographer, did preach or write against the Popes authority, when it first began to advance it self, in Victor, Cornelius Stephanus, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Boniface & Celestinus.

To this Bristow answereth: First, that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church, therefore I am against myself in making other Popes to be antichrist, for claiming such authority as these did. Whereto I reply, the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discover the mystery of iniquity, those later Popes that are antichrists, did openly show them selves in the temple of God as God, and therefore great difference. Secondly, Bristow answereth, that all those writers did communicate with those Popes: therefore our separation cannot be excused. I reply, their ambitious usurpation tended not to heresy, and therefore they were content to admonish them, but the latter Popes, from whom we dissent, are fallen into open heresy and apostasy. Thirdly, he saith, that no one of these writers wrote against the Popes authority, as he will show of Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, & Cyprian, Cap. 10. in 28. demand, where I will show that they did write against such unjust authority as those bishops did claim.

Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place, he saith, that he exhorteth Cornelius to be as stout in not loosing certain African heretics, as their own bishop had been in bynding of them. By which he would have men think, that Cornelius had authority to undo, that which Cyprian had done, as the Pope in these days taketh upon him. But Cyprian yieldeth to no such authority, but maruelleth that Cornelius was any thing moved with the threatening of those heretics, to receive them into his chur •• , under pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediately of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a few heretics, counting it sufficient that Cornelius knew before, that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa, saying of their gadding to Rome,

You see that Cyprian meant nothing less, than to give Cornelius bishop of Rome authority, to reverse the sentence of the bishops of Africa, whose authority he judged to be nothing less then the bishops of Rome or other places.

Moreover Bristow saith that Cyprian doth also note in S. Stephan some little negligence, but much more willful obreption, in those two lapsed bishops of Spain, Basilides & Martialis, who had concealed from him the truth, that in their supplication they should have expressed, which because they did not, he saith well, that their restitution by the Pope could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the bishop • of their own province. This which so plainly maketh for the Popes authoritit (saveth Bristow) you are so blind to bring against it.

Not so blind but I can see, that you acknowledge 〈…〉 e Pope i • • udgement of bynding and loosing may 〈…〉 re. But what I pray you maketh this for the Pope? you 〈…〉 eane perhaps, that Cyprian doeth grant by impli • ation, if the foresaid error had not deceived Stepha •• s, he had full authority to have restored those two 〈◊〉 apsed bishops. But Cyprian saith not so, you heard • efore what his judgment was of them that were condemned in one Province, that their sentence could not • e reversed in another, but if they would return to the Church, they should there be received upon their • epentance, where they were first condemned, and in this 4. Epistle he saith:

You see, that he reproveth Stephanus and such as took his parte, for neglect of divine discipline, in communicating with those heretics which were lawfully condemned in their own province, and therefore could not by any other be restored.

As concerning the Councils of Africa & Mileuis, (saith Bristow) the question between them and those other five Popes, was not about the matters of the universal church, as for example, matters of faith. No was, is not the Popes authority of you counted a matter of faith, and of the universal church? although they agreed in all other matters. But Bristow shameth not to say, it was not about the Popes authority in receiving of bishops appeals, but what order the Nicene Council had taken therein. As though that counterfeit Canon was not alleged, to justify the Popes authority in receiving such appeals. But there are examples you say, of appeals, and namely of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople, but of which Patriarchs & to whom you show not. yea, S. Augustine him self, you say. useth it as a plea: That Cecilianus was ready to plead his cause before other churches out of Africa. Ep. 162. This proveth not, that Cecilianus, although trusting in the innocency of his cause, refused no indifferent judges: yet that he appealed to the Church of Rome, and least of all to the singular judgment of the Bishop of Rome, but to all other churches. And the appeals that were made in his cause were made to y ^e Emperor, and from y ^e Bishop of Rome, being once delegate of the Emperor to hear his cause with other Bishops, unto him the seconde time, who gave aliud uidicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum &c. another judgment of A relate, of other Bishops, as it is plain in the same Epistle.

But such appeals were lawful, (saith Bristow) by the council Sardicense cap. 7. in the same Carthage council cap. 3. whose authority none of those African Bishops did deny, for the same Bishops were of it, that were of the Nicene: and Saint Augustine chap. 7. did expressly admit in the Canon of the inferiori appealing from their own • Bishops. In deed in the 3. chap. of the 6. Council of Carthage, that forged Canon of Bishops appeals was aledged, which is now read for the 7. Canon of the Sardicense council, but it was alleged as a canon of the Nicene Council, and if it had been a true canon of Serdica Council, why did not those Bishops allege it as a Canon of Serdica, as well as the other Canon of the inferiors appealing from their own Bishop unto the Bishops next adjoining, seeing the Bishops of Africa and S. Augustine himself, were so ready to yield to the authority of the Council of Serdica. Therefore it appeareth, that the Canon of bishops appeals to Rome being first forged as a Canon of the Nicene Council, when it could not find any settling there, was afterward foisted in the Sardicen Council.

Thirdly (saith Bristow) these appeals were lawful by the Nicene Council also, whereupon you say very insolently trusting overmuch your lying Lutherā friends, the Magdeburgiens that S. Augustine & his fellows took those Popes with plain forgery of the Canons of Nice, and fetched them over the coles meetely well for it. Bristow will still defend y ^t forged Canon, for other there is none in the Nicene council y ^t alloweth such appeals. As for y ^e Magdeburgiens I never read thē: but y ^e report of y ^e councils gathered by Peter Crab, I have read 〈◊〉 dosen years before I wrote against Allen. And in the end of the African Council I read this Epistle of y ^e council to Celestinus bishop of y ^e city of Rome. Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Celestino, &c. To our most well-beloved lord & honorable brother Celestinus. We Aurelius, Palatinus, Antonius, Tutus, Seruus dei, Terentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, Ianuarius, Optatus, Celticius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and the rest which were present in y ^e universal Africā council of Carthage: We would have wished if as thy holiness hath insinuated by letters sent by our fellow elder Leo, that you rejoiced of the coming of Appiarius: so we also might send with gladness these writings of his purgation. Verily both our and your chearfulnes should be now more certain, neither might seem too much hasted and ouerspeedy which as yet had gone before as well of one to be heard as of one that is already heard. Surely when our ho lie brother, and fellow bishop, Faustinus came unto us, we gathered a Council, and believed that he was therefore sent with him, that as by his help he had been before restored to the Eldership, so rrow by his labor he might have been purged of so great crimes as are objected by the Tabracenes, whose so great & so heinous wicked facts, the examinatiō of the course of our council hath found out; that the said persons hoped for patronage rather then judgment, and the aide of a defender rather then the justice of an examiner. For first of all, how much he withstood y ^e whole congregatiō, offering daily diverse injuries as one that maintained y ^e privileges of the Romaine Church, and that would be received into communion of us, whom thy holiness (believing that he had appealed, which he was not able to prove) had restored to the communion, which nevertheless was not lawful, and thou mayest know also better by the reading of the acts. Notwithstanding holding a most painful judgment by the space of three days, when being very much troubled, we inquired of diverse things objected unto him, GOD the righteous judge, strong, and long suffering, to our great profit hath cut off either the delays of our fellow Bishop Faustinus, or the crafty shifts of Appiarius himself, by which he went about to hide his filthiness, not to be named. For his more vile and stinking obstinacy being subdued, by which he would have overwhelmed so great and filthy mire with impudency, our GOD straining his conscience, and publishing even unto men, the secrete crimes which he did already condemn, which were as it were wrapped close in his heart, suddenly this crafty denyer brake forth into confession of all the wicked facts that were objected against him: And at length, of his own accord convicted himself of all those incredible reproaches, and turned into mourning even our hope by which we both believed and wished that he might have been purged of so shameful blots, but that he mitigated this our heaviness, with one only comfort that both he discharged us from the labor of longer inquiry, and also provided for his wounds such a medicine as it was, although it were by unwilling confession, and his own conscience striving against it, our Lord and brother. Therefore reserving our duty of due salutation we earnestly desire you that henceforwarde you do not easily admit unto your hearing, such as come from hence, nor that you will anymore receive into communion those y ^t are excommunicated by us, because your worship may easily perceive, that this matter is also defined in the Nicene Council. For although the provision seem to be there made of inferior Clerks, or lay men, yet howe much more would it, that the same should be observed concerning Bishops: that being suspended from the communion in their province, they should not seem by your holiness, either ouerhastily or vnduely, to be restored to the communion. Also let your holiness refuse the Iewde refuges, or shifts of Priests, and other clerks as it is meet for you to do, because that by no decree of the fathers, this is taken away from the Church of Africa, and the decrees of Nice have most manifestly committed them, whether they be clerks of inferior degree, or whether they be Bishops themselves unto their own Metropolitans. For most wisely and justly they foresaw, that all businesses should be ended in their own places where they began, and that the grace of the holy ghost, should not be wanting to every province, whereby equity by the priests of Christ might both be seen wisely, & also held most constantly, especially because it is granted to every man, if he shall be offended with the judgment of them that shall hear his cause, to appeal to the Councils of his own province, or else to a general council. Except peradventure there be any man which believeth, that our GOD can inspire the justice of examination and trial, into any one man whomsoever, and doth deny the same to innumerable priests gathered together in council. Or howe can the same judgment given beyond the sea, be steadfast and sure, unto which the necessary persons of witnesses, either for infirmity of sex, or of age, or for many other lets that may happen, cannot be brought? for that any judges should be sent as it were from the side of your holiness, we find it decreed in no Synod of the fathers: For that decree which you sent unto us long ago, by our said fellow Bishop Faustinus, as a decree of the Nicene council, in the truer council copies which are received of the Nicene council, being sent unto us, out of the authentical copy, by holy Cyrillus our fellow Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and by the worshipful Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, which also have been sent from us before this time, by Innocentius priest, and Marcellus subdeacon (by whom they were directed from them to us) unto Bishoppe Boniface of worshipful memory, your predecessor in which we could find no such matter. Also your clarks as executors of your commaūdemēts, neither send ye, nor grant ye, to any that shall require them: least we should seem to bring the smokie pride of the world, into the Church of Christ, which to them that desire to see God, showeth forth the light of simplicity, and the day of humility, for touching our brother Faustinus (now that Appiarius a man to be lamented is removed out of the Church of Christ for his vnspeable wickedness) we are sure that (saving the honesty & moderation of thy holiness) thy brotherly love will not suffer him to remain any longer in Africa: And written with another hand, our Lord preserve your ho lynesse, praying for us in long life, Lord brother.

Thus have I set down the whole Epistle, though it be somewhat long, that the English reader may see, and judge of y ^e whole matter in controversy between y ^e Bishops of Rome, and all the bishops, of all the countries of Africa which was y ^e third part of the world, and howe truly Bristow first denieth y ^e forgery which was proved by copies sent from Alexandria & Constantinople, out of y ^e authentical copy of the Council of Nice. Secondly y ^t he saith y ^e same matter in questiō for appeals, was decreed by y ^e council of Serdica, when this Epistle affirmeth, y ^• , by no decrees of any Synod, any such thing was appointed, but y ^e clean contrary by the council of Nice defined. Thirdly where he saith, those African fathers had small cause to stand so much with the Popes in those appeals, that they show great cause. Fourthly, where Bristow saith, that by this their doing nothing can be inferred against the Popes authority above provincial Councils, more then against a general Councils authority above a provincial, when they show the last appeal to be permitted to any man that findeth himself grieved, unto the general councils. Fifthly, where he saith y ^t popish kings & bishops, at this day stand w ^t the Popes in y ^e right of giving benefices, appeals &c. with his own good leave, w ^t out any prejudice to his superiority, I answer, y ^e bishops of Africa, w ^t out the Popes leave, & against his will, decreed, y ^t whosoever did appeal out of Africa, should not be received into communiō of any in Africa. What the Pope of servile fear is constrained at this day to yield, least he should be utterly forsaken of all, as he is of most, it is nothing to the purpose.

But I am moste ridiculous, in Bristowes judgment, where I allege Socrates the Nouatian, speaking against Pope Celestinus, for taking away the Novatians Churches in Rome, and counting it a point of foreign Lordship, not of Priesthoode. Thus the Papists defame such as write plainly against them, Eusebius they make an Arian, Socrates a Nouatian, even as he diffamed Saint Paul in the last Chapter, with much pricking of bodily lust. But what cause hath he to charge Socrates with the heresy of Novatus? He alledgeth none at all, neither is he able ever to prove the crime. In deed Socrates living at such time, as y ^e Novatians joining in faith of the holy Trinity with the Catholics against the Arians, Macedonians, and such other heretics, were not so odious, speaketh less sharply of them, then of other heresies. Yet always he accounteth them among heretics: As Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Ab eo tempore quo Nouatiani, &c. Euer since the time that the Novatians departed from y ^e Church. Is it like that Socrates was a Nouatian, when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church? Likewise having spoken of the divisions that were in the Catholic Church, he cometh to speak of the schisms that were among heretics, and nameth the Arians, Novatians, Macedonians and Eunomians Supr. & Trip. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 36. Thus much for the credit of Socrates: now to the matter: where Bristow saith, he counted it a point of foreign Lordship to expel y ^e Novatians, &c it is false. But he showeth the cause, why Celestinus could not prevail to do any good with them, his words are: Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopai • iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino vltra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominai • m progresso. But envy took hold of them, because y ^e Bishoprik of Rome, long before even as the Bishoprike of Alexandria, was proceeded beyond the bands of Priesthoode into foreign Lordship. Finally y ^t Socrates blameth the immoderate authority of S. Chrysostom, he doth it not alone, but other writers as much as he, & Socrates reporteth more of his severity toward his own clergy, thē toward y ^e Nouatiās of whō he was counted too much a favorer, & therefore Socrates writeth, that some judged, that he was justly deposed Eo quod multas Ecclesias Novatianorum, Quartodecimanorū, & aliorum tulisset haereticorum. Because he had borne with many Churches of the Novatians, Quartodecimanes and other heretics. Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alleged against the Popes supremacy, the decree of the Aphrican council Cap. 6. that no Bishoppe of the first see, should be called highest Priest, or Prince of Priests, but only Bishop of the first see: Bristow saith, it pertaineth only to the Primates of Africa, and concerneth not the titles, much less the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. But the truth is, that it was made specially to repress the ambition of the Roman Prelates, and therefore in the end of the Canon, as it is contained in the decrees, Dist. 99. cap. Primae. it is added,

By which it is manifest that his titles and authority also are commanded to be kept within their own bounds, and not to be acknowledged to have anything to do in the Churches of Africa, by commandment or authority such as then was claimed. But the Africans (saith Bristow) as appeareth in Saint Augustine's works, never called him Bishop of the first see, but Bishop of the Apostolic see. Although Saint Augustine's works cannot be witness, howe the Africans called him always: yet what gayneth the Pope or Bristow for him by this? What if they never called him primate or Bishop of the first see? (for other inferior Bishops were called Bishops of the second see.) The council forbadde them to give any other titles of authority beside this Bishop of the first see, it did not bind them that they should of necessity call them by that title. For it was sufficient to cal them the Bishops of Carthage, of Alexandria, of Rome, of Antioch, &c. And that they called the Roman Prelate Bishop of the Apostolic see of Rome, they gave him no more authority over the Churches of Africa, then when they called the Bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishoppe of the see Apostolic. Thus my Doctors (for anything Bristow can bring) remain constant witnesses of my side, against the usurped and Antichristian authority of the Bishop of Rome.