Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

3. About Purgatorye. Touching Scriptures expounded against it.

He saith I am taken in a vain brag, because I being urged by Allen, to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead, I bring only Jerome, referring the reader to other places of Cyprian, and Origen, and other cited in diverse places of my book. These places he saith, are but bare names. But when we come to expounding of these places, we shall find, either reason or authority of these Doctors for us. In the mean time, we will consider Hieronyme, whom Bristow saith, that I confess to have allowed prayers for the dead: Wherein he saith untruly, for I never confessed simply, that he allowed prayers for the dead: But Pur. 194. I said interrogatiuely and by way of concession, Howe hapeneth it y ^t Chrysostom and Hieronyme, which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead? And indeed in so many books of Hieronyme nothing can be found whereby it may be proved, that he allowed prayer for the dead, although it were a common error of many in his time. And in this place cited in the decrees by Gratia • . 139. 2. he simply denieth that any prayers are profitable for the dead.

The place in deed as (Bristow saith) is in his Comment. upon Gal. 6. although he in exposition allude to 2. Cor. 5. we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. But the answer of this place of Jerome, Bristow saith, I might learn of the gloss, which expoundeth it of them that die without repentance only, but in deed it is spoken generally of all men. As the very words declare upon this text, Everyone shall bear his own burden.

That which Jerome speaketh of himself, and of all other, that prayers cannot avail them, being out of this world, when the gloss restreyneth only to them that die in mortal sin, without repentance, it is as good as the old jest, Statuimus, id est abrogamus. It is also worthy to be considered that Jerome as it seemeth against the error of his time, calleth this a new doctrine which he gathereth of that sentence.

That the moste ancient doctors do not interpret the Scriptures by name against Purgatory, I said it was because Purgatory in their time was neither heard nor named. Bristow replieth, that I confessed Cap. 3. that the old doctors heard both the name and the thing, &c. Thus he chargeth me still with confessions falsely. For although Augustine heard of the name of Purgatory, whereof he sometimes doubteth, sometimes denieth all places but two, yet no writer before him. Neither were prayers for the dead heard in the Church, before the heresy of Montanus. But to return to Jerome, whom I said in Eccle. 11. to expound the North and South, not for the states of grace and wrath, but for the places of reward or punishment: Bristow saith of both. But I deny that he speaketh of the state of grace, in that sort that Allen meaneth: namely, that any man so dieth in the state of grace, that he obtaineth release of punishment after this life, which is the matter in question, but that Bristow is disposed to cavil. For although a man in this life, may be removed out of the North into the South, yet when the tree is fallen, there is no more removing by Jerome's judgment.

This which the Doctor speaketh expressly of a place, a seat of everlasting continuance, Bristow for want of a better answer, expoundeth of merit, as though it might stand with Hieronyms authority, that the place might be changed although the merit cannot be bettered.

Touching scriptures for Purgatory and prayer for the dead, whether the Doctors say, No Scripture to make for it.

I said that Tertullian confesseth, y ^t oblations & prayers for the dead were not taken of the scriptures but of tradition. Bristow in diverse places denieth any such confession of Tertullian, restraining his meaning to an only ceremony of oblation and prayers on the years day of their departure: as though oblation and prayer for y ^e dead generally, were clearly taught in y ^e scriptures, which thing if it be: why doth not Allen or Bristow, or any writer young or old, bring one place out of the canonical Scriptures, allowing prayer and oblation for the dead? and as touching Tertullian, his words are such, as with no equity may be restrained to so particular a ceremony:

Wherefore it remaineth, that oblations for the dead, whatsoever they were in Tertullian's time, were not taken of the Scriptures. And if they were Mass and prayers for the dead, as the Papists say, Mass and prayers for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures by Tertullian's confession.

The contradictions that he layeth to me, I always reserve to their peculiar Chapter. Augustine also denieth a third place to be found in the Scriptures, D • Verb. Apost. ser. 14. Contra Pelagian. Hyp. lib. 5. And De Verb. Apostol. Ser. 33 For praying for the dead, he alledgeth the tradition of the fathers, which he is not wont to do, where scripture doth not fail him. Epiphanius likewise against Arius bringeth no Scripture, but the custom and tradition of the Church in naming the dead in their prayers. And which of the old writers except Chrysostom, once goeth about to allege Scripture for prayer for the dead? Wherefore I made no vain brag in saying most of the old writers, that defend such prayers, confessed they had them not of the Scriptures.

Of certain particular texts.

I said that Saint Augustine is clear, that the text (1. Cor. 3. of him that shall be saved through fire) proveth not Purgatory, affirming, that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life. Bristow cavilling, that he affirmeth not, but speaketh doubtfully, &c. saith that he only showeth it ought not to be expounded, after the heresy of the Origenistes of hell fire. But Augustine's words are plain:

By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life, & denied to be spoken of Purgatory fire, thorough which by their own consent all men do not pass. Again he speaketh not at all, against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire, that it shall have an end, but against such as in his time did hold, That they which forsake not the name of Christ, and are baptized with his laver in the Church, and are not cut off from it by any schism or heresy, although they live in never so great wickedness, which they neither wash away by repenting, nor redeemed with alms, but continue most stubbornly in them unto the end of this life, shall be saved through fire, although they be punished according to the greatenesse of their sins and wickedness with long, but yet not eternal fire. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire, through which some should pass & not all, therefore against the popish purgatory, although he deny not but such a thing may be, yet it cannot be proved by this place, nor by any other place of scripture, as hereafter we shall see more at large in y ^e 3. division of this chapter, where Bristow promiseth I wot not what, to show of Augustine's judgment for Purgatory. I answered Allen, apposing us, where we had that new meaning of our saviors words, that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way, is cast into hell, from whence he shall never come, I alleged for that sense Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, & Chromatius. This is passing childish (saith Bristow:) For D. Allen demandeth no such thing. But this in deed is passing impudence: for Allens words in the same division (after he hath posed Calvin, Flaccus, Luther, Jewel, about their interpretation of scriptures, are these: But I will not make a reckoning of their unseemly glosses, I would their followers would only but ask them in all matters, from whence they had such new meanings which they falsely father on God's word. Now the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title, is of that place, Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristow, it is not true, that all those doctors have that sense, which I affirm them to have. But he only saith it, let their words be read, Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place, 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirm no error: I said he may by the same reason allow contradictories to be true. As in that saying, Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out, until he have paid the uttermost farthing, some have expounded, that he shall always be punished: some, that he shall not be always punished. Howe is it possible that both these interpretations can be true? Mary (saith Bristow, with as fine Rhetoric, as strong Logike:) Thus it is true, those he and he, are not one he: but he that shall be always punished, is he, that to the end of the way, that is this life, agreeth not with his adversary, whom he hath deadly iniuryed, as saying to him, fatue, and thereby incurring the guylt of Gehennae ignis, which i • the prison of the damned. He that shall not be always punished, is he whose injury was but venial, as Racha. And so both interpretations agree well, not only together, but also with the text it self. In deed, this is a fine distinction of he and he: but that he which agreeth not with his adversary in the way, shall be cast into prison, from whence he shall never come, whatsoever the matter were betwixt them, there is but one prison, from whence there is no deliverance, until the last farthing be paid, which by those doctors exposition, is never paid. Whether the injury be greater or lesser, the punishment is eternal, without reconciliation, or as Saint Luke saith, diligence to be reconciled. If thou being ready to offer thy gift at the altar, doest remember that thy brother hath anything against thee, go and reconcile thyself, saith Christ, and agree quickly with him while thou art in the way. Mark that he speaketh of all injury even offered by anger, or saying Racha, and not only of saying Fatue. But as for, that he, which agreeth with his adversary while he is in the way, what trespass soever he hath done him, he is not at all committed to prison, were his injury great or small. So that which He soever cometh into prison, there is no way of escape, until he have paid the uttermost farthing, which debt is always in paying and never discharged.

Secondly, whether the doctors give any other kind of testimony against us.

First, about the book of Maccabees.

Where I said, that Allen pretendeth to prove the book of Maccabees by authority of the church, when he cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD: Bristow replieth, as though all books are canonical which have consent with the Scriptures. Fulk reioyneth, that he understandeth not his argument so, but that which hath not consent with other canonical books, is not canonical.

Where I take exception, to the Council of Carthage, which numbereth this book among the canonical scriptures, as a Council provincial: Bristow saith, it was by my confession confirmed in the sixth general Council of Constantinople in Trullo, therefore it hath y ^e authority of the whole true church. But I took no exception to the generality thereof. But let it be as general as you will, both that and the Council in Trullo erred by your own judgment, seeing Carth. 3. Ca. 26. decreed against the authority of the Roman prelate, even by name, as Gratian witnesseth, Dist. 99. That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretic Art. 16. & 17. Beside this, I allege, that this Council of Carthage 3. among Canonical Scriptures, nameth five books of Solomon, whereas the church alloweth but three. Bristow answereth out of Augustine (which he saith was one of the Council) that the book of wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, of a certain similitude, were called Solomon's books, whereas they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach, although the former he retract in rest. li. 2. Ca. 4. I ask no better to prove the error of the Council, but that they named five of Solomon for three. Secondly, it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Council, y ^t although they called these books canonical, yet they meant them not to be of equal authority with the rest of the scriptures,

Bristow saith I ascribe unto S. Augustine. y ^t which he reporteth of the Jews, when I say that he alloweth them not in full authority w ^t the law, the Prophets & the Psalms: fraudulently omitting, that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentence that our Savior Christ appealeth to these only witnesses, namely the law, the Prophets & the Psalms, & so the Jews by ancient tradition, divide all the canonical books into these three orders. Secondly, where I note y ^t Augustine alloweth not these books w ^t out condition of sobriety in the reader or hearer: Brist. saith, that all Catholics & S. Peter do require y ^e same condition in y ^e reader of the whole scriptures, as S. Augustine doth in the Donatists, which defended the murthering of thenselves by example of Rasis out of the Maccabees. Wherunto I reply, y ^t although sobriety be required in all readers of y ^e holy scripture, & other writings also: yet it is not required, as a condition making y ^e scriptures to be profitably received of y ^e church, if they be soberly read: for howsoever y ^e canonical scriptures be read, & by whomsoever, although he be mad & drunk y ^t readeth or heareth them, yet are they not only profitably, but also necessarily received of the church, but this scripture of y ^e Machabes (saith Augustine) it is received not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. Who seeth not a gret difference between this scripture received under condition, & the canonical scripture authorized by Christ him self? But Augustine (saith Brist.) & the Council, call these canonical, de doct. Chr. li. 2. Ca. 8. In that place Augustine nameth all that by any church are counted canonical, confessing in a manner as Bristow granteth, that they were not all generally received of the whole church, & therefore instructeth y ^e studēt of divinity to prefer some before others. The reasons that I brought to prove this book, not to be canonical, are these, first because y ^e author commendeth Rasis for killing himself, which is contrary to God's commaundment. Bristow answereth out of Augustine, y ^t the scripture hath only told it, & not commended it. But the place is manifest, 2. Mach. 14. that the author of y ^e book doth not only report his murthering of himself, but also doth highly commend his manfulnes therein, willing (saith he) rather to die valiantly, than to give him self into the hands of wicked men, & to suffer reproach unworthy for his noble stock, & so forth to the ende of the Chapter. Secondly, I said, that writer abridgeth the five books of Jason: but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other men's writings. Bristow saith, the book of Kings in many places abridgeth stories, telling where they be written in other books that are not canonical. To this I answer: the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirit of man, but for civil affairs, sendeth the reader to other writers, seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them. Furthermore he saith, S. Mark is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthew, I answer, not so commonly, as falsely, for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. Matthew, and something he utterly omitteth, which is not the office of a true abridger. And albeit y ^t he did, it were no answer to mine objection, y ^t because the spirit of God telleth shortly, that which he himself had told at large, as in the Acts, the sermons of the Apostles, he is an abridger of Chronicles written by profane men. The citing of the saying of Poets, Act. 17. & Tit. 1. proveth not that the holy ghost intending to write an history of the church, useth the labor of y ^e profane man Jason the Cyrenian. I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their own received witnesses, another thing to bring five books of an history into one. Thirdly I said, the author of that book confesseth, that he toke that matter in hand, that men might have pleasure in it, which could not away with the long tedious stories of Jason. But the spirit of God serveth not such vain delights of men. Brist. asketh, if profitable brevity be a vain delight? but I speak not of the brevity, but the cause why he affected brevity, namely, that men might have pleasure in his work. Fourthly, I said, the author showeth what labor & sweat it was to him to make this abridgement, ambitiously commendeth his travel, & showeth the difference between a story at large, & an abridgement, all which things savor nothing of God's spirit. Also he confesseth his infirmity, and desireth pardon if he have spoken slenderly and barely, whereby he testifieth sufficiently, y ^t he was no scribe of y ^e holy ghost. Bristow saith (that he ambitiously commendeth his travel) is but my blasphemy, all y ^e rest standeth well enough with the assistance of y ^e holy ghost. Concerning his ambitious commendation of his travel, where to serveth his great complaint of y ^e great labor, sweat, & watching y ^e it cost him? & the wise similitude y ^t he taketh of him that maketh a feast, & seeketh other men's commodity, & hath no small savor: Likewise in the ende, a passing good similitude of wine, to finish his book which he began with a feast. But to the rest, Bristow asketh, if the scribes of the holy ghost, must be always eloquent, or able to do all without sweat or labor? I answer, as vain eloquence is not profitable for them, so they never complain for the lack of it, but spiritual utterance they have abundantly, and that without sweat and watching, whē they write as the spirit of God doth move them. Neither doth S. Paul confess, y ^t he lacketh utterance, when he said he was rude in speaking: 2. Cor. 11. but rehearsed what the false Apostles did object against him, for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in divine eloquence, y ^t he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercury. Act. 14. Neither doth he excuse his boldness writing to the Romans, as Bristow saith blasphemously, but showeth that he was bold, vpō his office, because he was y ^e minister of Christ unto the gentiles. Ro. 15 That he used y ^e hand of Tertius in writing y ^t Epistle, or any other, it was not to avoid y ^e labor of endi ting: Finally, y ^t he used intolerable pains in preaching, It proveth not, y ^t it cost him great labor, & travel in studying, what to write or preach either, which y ^e spirit of God did minister unto him plentifully: But never doth he crave pardon, as one uncertain whether he have don well or no, as the writer of the Maccabees doth, confessing in the end that he hath done as well as he could, and in the beginning, leaving to the author y ^e exact diligence of every particular, so submitting his labor as inferior in perfection to the work of Jason the Cyrenian. That I speak not of so many falshods and fables as he affirmeth for truth, which are refelled both by the former book of Maccabees and by Josephus.

Where Allen alleged y ^e authority of Jerome in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted thereby, for in S. Jerome's works none such is found: now cometh Bristow, & telleth me it is in a preface before the book of Maccabees, in y ^e vulgar latin Bybles, taken out of y ^e sēse of Jerome, as diverse of those prefaces be, and that will appear by these two places, which I cite out o • him to prove y ^t book not canonical: The former is in his preface upon y ^e book of kings, where rehersing y ^e names of the canonical books, he omitteth this, and after saith expressly it is not in the Canon. Bristow answereth, it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews. As though the church of God, since Christ should have more books of the old testament in y ^e canon, then y ^e church of the Hebrews had. Jerome saith y ^t this preface of his, may be set before all the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin,

So y ^t Jerome speaketh expressly, y ^t not only among the Jews, but among Christians also these & all other books without y ^e canon, are to be taken for apocriphall.

The other place of Jerome is in his preface upon the prouerbs, that they were neither in the Churches canon.

To wit (saith Bristow) against the Jews, as though y ^e Churches doctrine, is not to be confirmed against heretics, and even to y ^e Catholics themselves, by authority of the canonical scriptures.

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

But Jerome is also cited in his preface upon y ^e book of Judith to affirm the book of Judith to be canonical by the council of Nice: if that were so, what pertaineth it to the book of Maccabees? But in deed it is not so: for though we should doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in Judith, the words are these:

First he saith it was read of the Hebrews among the Hagiographa, which is false, as Jerome affirmeth Prolog. Gal. in lib. reg. Secondly, as Erasmus hath noted, he affirmeth not, that this book was allowed by the Nicē council, but saith it is read to have accounted perhaps in some such writer, as coined the canon sent unto the Aphrican council. Thirdly, if we shall understand Hagiographa here as Bristow would have them, not for those nine that be canonical, but others that be Apocryphal, & yet holy writings, why should we not likewise say, y ^t the computatiō of y ^e Nicene council, was to receive it among such Apocriphall holy writings, and not among y ^e canonical scriptures of irrefragable authority? And therefore Fulke is even where he was before, in saying y ^t Jerome doth simply refuse y ^e books of y ^e Maccabees, & saith y ^e church receiveth thē not for canonical, & even that which Bristow saith, I should have shown, that the church neither did then nor ought afterwards to receive them,

where I said that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint James, but Eusebiu: before them, saith plainly it is a counterfeit, protesting that I speak it not to excuse them y ^t doubt of it, Bristo • is not content, except I would condemn thē for heretics, which afterward reversed their error, especially Luther. Also he chargeth me to be a falsarie of Eusebius, in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeit, when he saith the clean contrary, and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius, I know not out of whose translation But y ^e words of Eusebius are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It must be known that it is a bastard or counterfeit.

2 About only scripture.

I said Cyprian would have nothing done in the celebration of y ^e lords supper, & namely in ministering of the cup, but that Christ himself did. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristow answereth y ^e he writeth against y ^e Aquarians which offered water only, where as Christ offered wine, which was clean against Christ's doing. And what is your sacrilege, in robbing of y ^e church of Christ of the whole cup? is it not clean contrary, both to his doing & his commandment, drink ye all of this, and such doing as he did for a tradition unto us, when y ^e Apostle rehersing y ^t tradition reherseth drinking of the Lord's cup by y ^e lay, as well as eating of y ^e bread? As for mingling wine with water, which first was but a custom of sobriety, after grew into a ceremony, if Cyprian should urge of necessity, he might be answered by his own rule.

Likewise where Chrysostom saith, it was decreed by the Apostles y ^t in the celebration of the holy mysteries, a remembrance should be made of them y ^t are departed, I said we will be bold to charge him w ^t his own sayings: first Hom de Adam & He • a: satis sufficere, &c. we think it sufficeth enough whatsoever the writings of y ^e Apostles have taught us according to the foresaid rule, insomuch that we count it not all catholic whatsoever shall appear contrary to the rules appointed.

By this Bristow seeth, y ^t I am a great reader of the doctors. For whosoever made this homily (saith he) he took those words out of y ^e instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus, in the first tome of councils, where the words are not, the writings of the Apostles but the writings of y ^e see apostolic, which are thought sufficient. Whatsoever my reading be, for the maker of the Homily, I cannot depose, but I trust he will not deny, but it hath in all printed books gone under the name of Chrysostom, and it containeth nothing unworthy the judgment of Chrysostom. It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoever gathered that instruction, borrowed those words out of this homily, and from y ^e writings of the Apostles perverted them to the writings of the see apostolic, many such borrowing & peruersions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles. For admit that not Chrysostom, but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of y ^t Epistle or instruction: Why did he alter them, if he thought the writings of the apostolic see sufficient, to approve all catholic doctrine? except perhaps his copy had also apostolica scripta, & that copy which Peter Crab followed in gathering the councils is corrupted. Certain it is, the homily is ancient, and made in the time when the Pelagian heresy begun to spring, which was in the later time of Chrysostom, & therefore I have used no fraud, or misdemeanor in citing this saying for Chrysostom's, whereto Bristow maketh no answer, but denieth the authority. Likewise where I cite out of Chrysost. in Ge. Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow y ^e Canon or rule of y ^e holy scripture, but permit all to their own cogitations. Bristow answereth nothing, but y ^t Chrysost. answereth heretics which said our Lord took not ture flesh: as though his sentence is not general against all heretics which go besid the scripture. Thirdly I said, if we be further urged, we will allege y ^t he writeth in Euang. Iac. Hom. 58. He that useth not the holy scripture, but clymeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a these.

To this Bristow replieth, that I will call Chrysostom a thief by his own saying, for using tradition, yea verily if he be obstinate: and why not as well as S. Paul, or an Angel accursed, if they bring another Gospel? Secondly he saith, as though he useth not scripture, which useth tradition, or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I answer such tradition as is warrāted by scripture we refuse not, but if all your traditions were warrāted by scripture, where should be your unwritten verities? Thirdly (saith Bristow) the thing y ^t he speaketh of, is that Antichrist & Pseudochrists, cannot show any commission out of scripture. I answer that proveth the Pope to be Antichrist, who neither for his authority, nor for his doctrine, can show any commission out of the scripture.

Fourthly I said, we may be as bold with Chrysostom, as he said he would be with Paul himself, in 2.

Bristow asketh, whether he spake only by scripture. No verily, but by revelation he spake to S. Paul, by and • ble and human voice he spake to the rest of the Apostles, and whatsoever he spake any way pertaining to our instruction, is committed to writing, and therefore I believe not Chrysostom, alleging a tradition of the Apostles which is not found in their writings.

Another place of Chrysostom, I cite in Luke, Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bred heresies: Therefore he would have heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures. We would the same (saith Bristow) but what maketh this for only scripture to be of authority? yes forsooth. If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures, that which cometh not through ignorance of the scriptures, is no heresy: And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures, cometh not of ignorance of the scriptures: therefore he y ^t knoweth y ^e scriptures, knoweth all truth.

Unto Leo the great alleging custom and tradition, I oppose his own saying, for only Scripture to be sufficient.

nor to the authorities of the Gospel, but to themselves.

He doth not say (saith Bristow) that all truths are expressed in the Scripture. For he blameth the heretic, for not having recourse to our common Creed, as though there were anything in our common Creed, which is not expressed in the Scripture. And if only Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscurity, howe could they be blamed for not having recourse unto them, for y ^t which they cannot find in them? The words of y ^e council of Constantinople y ^e 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these:

So expressly (saith Bristow) they avouch the authority of councils, and you allege them for only Scriptures. I cry you mercy sir: Do they allege the authority of Councils, as though the preaching of the Gospel, and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient: when they said before, if men would have been content with them, there needed no councils? But you add, that in their words, there is no mention at all of Scripture, but only of preaching and teaching. What I pray you, is the Gospel, which they should preach no scripture? are not the constitutions of the Apostles contained in their writings? I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writings. At leastwise what sword did these warriors use against Satan, stirring up his squires? doth not the council say expressly the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God contained in the Scriptures? for what other word doth Saint Paul commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reprove all heresies into perfection? 2. Tim. 3.

Against Basil maintaining unwritten tradition I opposed his own authority, De Ver. Fid. in Proem. Moral. We know y ^t we must now and always avoid every word and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lord. But all is not differing, saith Bristow, that is not expressed in the Scripture. Neither do I say so, but all is differing that cannot be proved by Scripture. And so saith Basil in his short definition, to the first interrogation.

Here you see, he extendeth the word of God no farther then the holy Scriptures. Yet Bristow saith: If I saw the place, my malice passeth. For the words are these. Who can be so mad, that he dare so much as to think anything of him self? And it followeth. But because of those things & words that are in use amongst us, some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted. Concerning them that are omitted (saith Bristow) We have this rule, to be subject to other men for God's commandment renouncing quite our own wills. In very deed I abridged the place, and gave the true sense, because it is large. But if Bristow understand Basills language, his words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c,

Where hath Bristow, that we should be subject to other men in such things, as are omitted by Scripture; therefore not my malice, but his ignorance passeth, and that willful also, although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may have a better. An other place of Basil I cited in his Moral. defin. 26. Bristow saith, he admonisheth his monks being students in divinity, to be so perfect in the Scriptures, y ^t they may have a text ready, at every need as when we bid them, cast all away that is not written, they have this text ready, where Saint Paul biddeth us the contrary. To hold the traditions which we have learned, whether it be by his Scripture, or by his word of mouth. 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paul bid them hold such doctrine as was not to be proved out of the Scriptures? did he preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians, when those to whom he preached daily, searched the Scriptures, tosee if those things were even so. Act. 17. And where I pray you, did you hear any tradition by word of Saint Paul's mouth, that you may object it to us? we doubt not but whatsoever he preached was as true, as that he did put in writing, if you can assure us of it: but seeing that is impossible, and it is certain he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing, Basills rule must still stand in force, that every word and deed must have confirmation of holy scripture, or else it is not good, for all good works are taught in the Scripture, and all true doctrine may be found in them. 1. Tim. 3.

Now cometh Bristow, to answer such things as I object out of Augustine against unwritten traditions: which he digesteth into three sorts. The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the authority of the canonical Scripture, before all writings of Catholic Doctors of Bishops, of Councils, before all customs and traditions.

But this Bristow denieth to be the question, but whether nothing but Scripture be of authority: I answer, those places prove that nothing is of infallible verity, but the scriptures, therefore they prove that they only are of irrefragable authority.

The second sort of places are about this question, who hath the true Church. Of which question I affirm, that S. Augustine would have the Church sought only in the Scriptures. And he • e he biddeth me read his first demand, likewise I will send him to mine answer unto y ^e same. At length he confesseth, that Augustine is content in that question, to set aside all other authorities, to try it by the Scriptures: But that nothing else is good authority in that question, that he never saith. Neither do we say it, or refuse any authority, that is agreeable to the Scriptures. And as that one question, which was between S. Augustine, and the Donatists was determinable by the only authorititie of Scriptures, so are all questions that are between the Church of all times, and all heretics.

The Donatists held that the Church was perished out of all partes of the world, except Africa, as the Papists hold, that it is perished out of all partes except a piece of Europa. Saint Augustine by the Scripture proveth, the continuance in the Church dispersed over all the world, and that we hold against the Romish synagogue of Popish Donatists, who have separated them selves from the Catholic Church, into the function of an Italian Priest, as the other did of an African. But Bristow saith, I am as blind as a beetle, in saying that the Papists did separate themselves from our Church, seeing it is certain, that Luther did separate him self from the Popish Church. The like might be said to all them that forsook the fellowship of any heretics, to come unto the Church of God.

But Bristow is as mad as a march Hare, that bragging so much of the title of y ^e church, he is driven to try it only by the Scriptures, as Augustine calleth upon the Donatists. The other places which I aledge out of Aug, (saith Bristow) are about all questions with heretics, whatsoever. As that he would oppress the Arian Maximinus with the authority of the Nicene council. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristow asketh, whether he might not press them with the authority thereof, as he doth the Donatists? But ask Augustine him self who saith, he ought not in that case, that he charged the Donatists, which it was by their own concession, because they allowed it. But he saith in the same place, the Fathers of the Nicene council ratified Homousion, that is, equality of the son with the father, Veritatis autoritate, & autoritatis veritate, by authority of truth, and by truth of authority. This truth of authority, Bristow will have to be the authority of the Nicene council, as though the council could not err: but then what needed y ^e authority of truth? In deed where the council decreeth with the truth, it is the truth of authority, for other authority a Council hath not, but of truth: to declare truth, and not to make truth, for if it declare error, as the council of Arimine did, it hath no truth of authority, because it hath no authority of truth. Moreover Bristow saith, I translate falsely these words, Nec ego huius autoritate, nec tuillius detineris. Neither am I bounden to the authority of the one, nor thou of the other. Whereas it should be: Neither doth the authority of the one hold me, nor of the other hold thee. There is great difference between, being holden, and being bound. To the bare authority of the council of Nice, Maximinus was no more bounden, then Augustine to the bare authority of Ariminum. It was the truth of Nice, that the Arian was bound unto, and the falsehood of Ariminum, that Augustine was not holden with us. But after the example of Augustine (saith Bristow) we will not allege the council of Trent, as our proper witnesses to our side, but the authority of Scriptures common to both. Witness hereof, Bristowes motives, where he would overthrow us by the bare name of Catholic, and heretic, &c. Again he saith, that we make challenge of 600. years also. And what then? Witnesses of truth we take wheresoever they be, but authority of truth only out of the Scriptures. Where I said, that Augustine, setting all other persuasions aside, provoketh only to the Scriptures, to try the faith and doctrine of the Church: Bristow answereth: Howe true that is, appeareth in the same book, De Vnitate Eccle. which you cite. For when he hath proved against the Donatists, the Church to be his, he saith expressly, that to be enough also, for all other questions. Sufficit nobis: It is enough for us that we have that Church, which is pointed too, by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonical Scriptures. De Vnit Eccle. Cap. 19. Doth he say expressly, it is enough for all other questions? I must needs say expressly you lie. For the only question, being how the Donatists should be received, if they would come to the Catholic Church, as though they were the true Church, because baptism given among them was not repeated in the Catholic Church, Augustine after much concertation saith.

Where he speaketh not of the authortie of y ^e Church to determine questions, but showeth it is sufficient to have proved by y ^e Scriptures, for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church, that last question of theirs, how they should be received, though it be not resolved, yet cannot disprove them to be the true Church, nor prove the Donatists to be the Church, seeing there can be but one.

Where out of this Book Cap. 16. I show, that Augustine declareth, first that Heretics must be confuted only by Scriptures, secondly that neither councils, succession of Bishops universality, miracles, visions, dreams nor revelations, are the notes to try the Catholic Church, but only the Scriptures: Bristow saith, they are notes with the Scripture, as he hath shown in his demand, I answer whatsoever agreeth w ^t the Scripture, may well be received. But the Scripture without all these is sufficient, to try the Church as Augustine showeth, & therefore all the rest of Bristowes motives, might be spared, if he durst join issue upon the Scripture only, as Augustine doth, but that he dare not do. He hath a great quarrel of Augustine, for translating manifestatur is proved, as though Augustine said, that true miracles and visions lack weight and fashion of just probation. If you call true miracles, that are done indeed and not counterfeited, I say that all such make no just probation. For God tempteth his Church by such, to see if they will forsake his commandment. Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeed, are joined with the truth of doctrine, which being tried by the word of God to be such, confirm it or prepare men's minds unto it, of themselves never sufficient to avouch true doctrine, without God's word: and therefore I will still t •• nslate, manifestatur is manifestly proved or shown, which is alone.

Moreover out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam. Cap. 4. I shown, that though consent, and universality, antiquity, succession, be good confirmation, when they are joined with truth: yet when truth is severed from them, it is more to be regarded then they all. Bristow saith, that Augustine granteth not that the truth can be separated from them. Yes verily, or else he should have stood upon that point only, that truth cannot be severed from those marks, which undoubtedly the Catholic Church had, and the Manichees wanted. And although he said, the Church had most sincere wisdom, yet he saith not, that wheresoever was antiquity, succession, &c. there must needs be the most sincere wisdom.

Lastly out of the book De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affirmed, that man's authority is too weak to carry away so weighty a matter, as was in question, using the words of Augustine: Auferantur chartae humanae, &c. Let men's papers be removed, let the voices of God be heard, show me one place of Scripture for Donatus side, &c. Bristow rehearsing the saying more at large as I did, Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke? unless he thinketh he hath any vantage in his own false translation of Acta, turning it decrees. Surely whether the word be well or ill translated, I seek no vantage thereof, and yet if I should change my translations, I would rather call Acta acts of the Court or records, then Courtrolles as you do. But every man may see, what vantage you clasp at, among ignorant persons, by your false translation of Chartae humanae men's Court papers, as though the word of Augustine were not general to remove all men's writings, and to urge only the Scripture. But the Church beginning at Jerusalem & spreading over all Nations, to the very last time, which Augustine in all places proveth against the Donatists, maketh much against us in Bristowes opinion. Nay rather against the Papists, which restrain the Church into the Romish rabble, which we affirm, both is and was always, scattered over all the world, although greater in number at sometimes then at other some, seeing that Mahomet hath infected a great part of the world, and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ hath his members, that never bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha, or to the Pope of Rome.

3 About certain traditions.

The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I said those oblations, with other superstitions fathered upon tradition of the Apostles, by the Nicene, & other councils, as Rhenanus witnesseth, are abrogated.

Bristow answereth that he speaketh never a word of any other traditions. Yet Bristow confesseth him self, that many of them are abrogated. Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. & 5.

4 About the marriage of Votaries.

The two places one of Epiphanius, the other of Hieronyme, which I cited for the Marriage of Votaries, Bristo we saith are about a matter, which they hold even as those fathers did. But in deed they hold the contrary, for they held the marriage of such lawful, the Papists dissolve them, and say they are no marriages. It is better saith Epiphanius, to have one sin, and not many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course, opennly to take a wife according to the law, and of long time to repent from his virginity, and so to be brought again to the Church, as one that hath done amiss, as one that is fallen and broken & having need to be bound, rather then to be wounded daily with privy darts, of that wickedness, which the devil putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preach, these are the medicines of healing. Bristow saith, I gather that marriage is an wholesome medicine for such men. Contrarie to that I confess myself, that he calleth it a sin.

But he slandereth me as he doeth often: I said Epiphanius doth count it an offense to marry, because it was a breach of vow, but neither he, nor I, said that mar • i • ge is a sin Bristow saith likewise, the Apostles tradition calleth it a sin. But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof even as he did me. The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt, &c. The holy Apostles of God have delivered, y ^t it is a sin after virginity decreed, to be turned to marriage. They say not marriage is a sin, but by breach of vow to marry is a sin. For their sin cannot pollute the ordinance of God. But the wholesome medicines are penance & reconciliation, saith Bristow. And why not marriage I pray you? whatsoever is good for the diseased, is an wholesome medicine: to take a wife openly, is good for the diseased: therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine. As for your distinction of solemn vow, and sole vow is a very bable: Epiphanius speaketh generally of all that had vowed virginity.

To the place of Jerome Ad Demetriadem, he answereth that they which of two sins will needs commit one, they counsel them to commit the less rather then the greater. But Jerome maketh no comparison of sins, but saith to such virgins as lived incontinently.

5. About the real presence and transubstantiation.

About these pointes I will not stand, considering I have written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders, and that Bristow bringeth nothing nor half so much as hath been refelled in their books concerning these places.

Where I said, it was not the belief of S. Aug. y ^t the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristow asketh if it be his mystical body, or whether Christ have anymore bodies. It were an easy matter to show that it is called by Augustine the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, but I pardon Bristowes ignorance: and answer him, that the sacrament is neither his natural, nor his mystical body in proper speech, But secundum quendam modum, as Aug. saith, after a certain manner, both, And I read in Theodoret of a third body, which the sacrament is, De typico symbolico{que} corpore, a typical or sacramental body.

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

The place of Augustine, which I translated word for word, and faithfully gave the sense thereof, as every man may see that readeth it, Purg. 309. Bristow shamefully perverteth, setting the carte before the horse, in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense. But even in that same book and Chapter De Trinitate, Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is clear, against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation, speaking of signs, & namely of the bread which is spent in receiving of the sacrament: Sed

Whereof if he had known the carnal presence, & change of the bread, such as the papists speak of, he must needs have acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature, which they are constrained to fain, although no man can see them, whereas all corporal miracles wrought by God are sensible

The place of Justinus with Bristowes cavil confuted, is in mine answer to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answer. Lib. 2. Cap. 4 • . And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited, who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation (saith Bristow) because it was not clearly defined to be in form and matter, before the last council of Trent, you shall find with his cavil confuted Lib. 3. Cap. • 2. & 56. Against Sanders book of the sacrament. Lib. 6. Cap. 5.

6 About the sacrament of penance. Absolution.

About the sacrament of penance, the Popish Church saith four things: first that by the Priests absolution, the guilt of sin and eternal pains due for it are taken away, but one hours torment in Purgatory, as the master of the sentences teacheth, is not taken away thereby, and Allen confesseth (Bristow saith) it availeth to take away the torments of hell. But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to God's ministers for absolution, giveth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christ's office in earth, both for pardoning and punishing of sin: that suffering here in his Church sentence and just judgment for his offenses, he may the rather escape our fathers grievous chastisement in the life to come. Thus Allen is clean contrary to Bristow, and himself, and left naked in this place, as almost in all places, by Bristow, who would seem to take upon him his defense.

The second thing is temporal debt, remaining after absolution. Touching this matter, I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deaths of Moses and Aaron, that they were signs of things to come, not punishments of God's displeasure. Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristow complaineth of my sincerity, and rehearseth the words before. When it is said to them, that they should be gathered to their people:

What want of sincerity is here, except there be so great difference between indignation and displeasure? But Bristow cavilleth of the wrath that separateth forever, as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time. Yet the scripture presseth, where God said you shall die, because you did not believe me. This was no satisfaction for their temporal debt remaining after absolution, whereof the question is, but a fatherly correction to them, and an example unto other. Yea such a correction as was a greater benefit, namely to be received into the eternal land of promise, then the punishment was, that they should not enter into the earthly possession.

Likewise I reported, that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc. mer. ac rem. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laid upon David after • his adultery remitted, was the chastisement of God's fatherly scourge. Bristow asketh, if it be no punishment, because it is a scourge? yes verily: and whether it be not for sin? yes truly. But never the sooner a temporal debt remaining after absolution, when it is the scourge of a fathers chastisement. For I chastise not my child, that his punishment should satisfy any part of his fault, but to keep him in humility, and fear for committing the like, and for example to the rest of my family, as wise a father and divine as Bristow will esteem me. And how can Bristow defend Augustine against the Pelagians, showing why death that came in by sin, still remaineth even upon them whose original sins he confesseth to be so fully forgiven in baptism, y ^t they owe nothing, neither eternally nor temporally for them: if death in such, be any temporal debt, remaining after absolution, when he will have the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfy the debt of sin.

But for a contradictory of Allens assertion, I cited out of Chrysostom in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiveness, there is no punishment. Bristow saith, he speaketh of the forgiveness in baptism to a Jew: Allen of forgiveness in penance. But he may not creep out at that hole, it is too straight for him. Chrysostom speaketh generally, wheresoever there is forgiveness, there is no punishment, yea he saith, Vbi gratia ibi & venia, where grace is, there is forgiveness therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiveness, and where there is forgiveness, there shall be no punishment: neither doth Chrysostom in that place speak a word, either of Jew, or Baptism, but of all Christians escaping by grace, the wrath which the law worketh, and being made heirs of the promise by faith.

The third thing is satisfaction, against which, Bristow saith, I alleged Chrysostom, and Ambrose so fondly, that the words which I allege will declare, Chrysost. De

He requireth only compunction of the heart, therefore he requireth no works of satisfaction, neither those, nor any other. Bristow will see nothing, but the straight mourning of Monks. The word only is so little for his purpose, that he cannot see it. And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can, Chrysostom saith it is besides God's commandment.

To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter. I read of his tears, I read not of his satisfaction. Bristow replieth, that he saith immediately before, I find not what he said, I find that he wept. Wherevpon he will gather, both confession, and satisfaction necessary. I would fain see that collection in a syllogism.

Surely if they were both necessary, S. Peter, by judgment of Ambrose, lacked two necessary pointes of repentance, which Judas had, and yet obtained not forgiveness: But tears (saith he) are a special kind of confession and satisfaction. And yet where Ambrose saith, they obtain pardon, Bristow saith, they are not sufficient: so that Peter weeping, having beside his inward contrition a special kind of confession and satisfaction, had not y ^t which would serve. But Br. leaving this place as obscure, referreth us to a plain place. Ad vir. Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime, is necessary a passing great satisfactiō. whereto I answered before, y ^t an heinous offense must be earnestly bewailed, if the repentance be not coūterfet, Brist. saith, He doubted not of her repentance to be unfeigned. What thē? He exhorteth her to continue her repentance, not for satisfaction to God, whose justice cannot be sa • isfied by man's work, but by her earnest sorrow, to satisfy the Church which was offended by her whoredom.

The fourth thing is pardons, whereof Bristow speaketh as he doth commonly, with wonderful confusion. I said the old satisfaction was in respect of the offense unto the Church, and not to satisfy the justice of God, which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enjoined by the Church, upon good consideration, might be and often was released by the Church, as appeareth by many places of Cyprian, which Bristow citeth and many other, but not by the Bishop only, and this release or remission, was called indulgence or pardon, which is no more like to Popish pardons, then the creaking of a goose, is like the song of a swanne. But as for pardoning of sin, they affirmed that it was proper to God, as Ambrose to the virgins.

Bristow saith, He did bind her to penance all her life, bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand, as he bound the Emperor Theodosius indefinitely, and loosed him after eight months penance, with a pardon. Who seeth not, quoth Bristow, that all this maketh plainly for pardons?

But Ambrose telleth her, not, that he would not pardon her, but that no man can pardon the offense committed against God, and that if the Pope himself should promise to pardon her, he should but deceive her. And yet the Church might pardon the offense and slander where with they were justly offended, by her whoredom, and restore her to the Communion, as I doubt not but they did; although she should continue her repentance, all the days of her life, & when Ambrose did bind and loose the Emperor, he did only use the discipline of the Church, to bring him to repentance, that God might forgive his sins, not that he might make satisfaction for y ^e slaughter of 7000. men, of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. months penance, but after such time, seeing him to be sorrowful in deed, received him again into the communion. The place of Cyprian In Sermon. de Lapsis is very clear to show that God and not man, forgiveth the sins.

Against this so plain a place: Bristow cauelleth, that he speaketh to impenitents, that trusted also in lay men's pardons: which is false, for they were not altogether impenitent, but not sufficiently repentant, neither did they trust in lay men's pardons, but without dew repentance tried, made hast to be reconciled by entreaty of the Martyrs, yet with the hurtful facility of the priests, whereof Cyprian complaineth:

As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristow would have to be noted, were not pardons of sins, but release of time of separation enjoined by the Church to show repentance for their sins, as I declared before. Which is even as ancient as the Gospel, whereas popish pardons Apoena & culpa, are of a much newer stamp, and contrary to the ancient custom in the givers, for they were given by the whole Church, in the persons, for they were given to men a live only, in the time, for they were given but of a short time of penance enjoined in this life, and not of so many thousand years, &c. in the thing released, for they were neither pardons of punishment, nor of sin dew to God's justice, but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church, when the Church was otherwise satisfied.

7 Of Purgatory, of the Canonical memento, of oblations, & of sacrifice for the dead practiced by the Church.

Bristow chargeth me to use the arguments from men's authority negatively, which I myself confess to be naught, but he mistaketh the matter: I said the order of prayers and administration of the holy mysteries, described by Justinus, and Tertullian, do sufficiently declare what was the usage of the Christians in those purer times, in which no mention being made of oblations and sacrifice for the dead, it is certain, there was none used, not only because there is no mention, but because those two old Fathers in their Apologies, declare whatsoever was done in their assemblies. As for oblations for the dead, that Tertullian speaketh of, cannot be proved to have been used at the communion, but rather at the burial of the dead. But Arnobius (saith Bristow) about the very same time, as a witness to the contrary, complaing that the connenticle houses of the Christians, were pulled down by the Pagans, in which God is prayed unto, peace, & pardon is asked, for all men, for the Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the living and for the dead. Such a saying there is in Arnobius, Lib. 4. Con. gra. I confess, but how proveth Bristow, that he was about the time of Justinus, or Tertullian, when he confesseth it was 300, years since Christians were named, Lib. 1? and under Dioclesian he flourished, saith Jerome, which was six or seven score years after Tertullian, the later of the two who flourished under Seuerus.

The old liturgy of the Greek Church in Epiphanius time, had a memory of the dead, but seeing it was an oblation for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, &c. in the first institution thereof, it could be but an offering of thanks giving, although Epiphanius expounded it after the error of this time, to be a prayer for the sinner, & a separation of Christ from the order of men. This is the effect of that I said. Bristow saith, I am deceived, by thinking it is but one memory, whereof Epiphanius speaketh, and sendeth me to the countefeit liturgies of Saint James, Chrysostom, and Basil, which were written long after their age, according as well to y ^e error of the time, in which they were writ̄, as in some expressing the name of the Emperor, and Bishop, in whose time they were written. Also he sendeth me to diverse places of S. Augustine, but which I know not, for the place Encherid C. 110. & Dulci. q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptized persons that are departed, which he saith for the very good are thanksgiving, for them that were not very ill asking of mercy, for the very ill no help, but a comfort of the living. Chrysostom also speaketh of a general memory of all that were departed, instituted by y ^e Apostles Ad Philip. hom. 3. in which if there had been an express form of prayer for y ^e dead, he needed not of that memory, to have proved prayer to be profitable to the dead. The place of Origen he mangleth, even as his Master Allen doth, but he more usually, suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together, without prejudice of his interlacing. In

First concerning my translation, Bristow will have Religiosos to signify Monks, as though none were devout, but they, or as though the Church in Origen's time, were so full of Monks, as it was afterward. Secondly he saith, that death is a putting away of the sorrows of this life only, where Origen saith of all, and it were small cause of rejoicing, to put off the small sorrows of this life, if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatory. Again, the rest of the dead, he will have to be only of their bodies. That were a poor refrigerium, if their souls should fry in Purgatory. The savor of sweetness he will not have to be a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but a work meritorious, as though it was a work meritorious, that Noah offered clean beasts after the floode, when the text saith, the Lord smelled a sweet savor, Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thanksgiving for his deliverance. The like ignorance (he saith) I show, to think that memory for one, cannot be a prayer for him. As S. Paul to the Colloss. Remember my gives: and to the Hebrews, Remember them that are in gives, &c. But where did I say so ignorantly, that prayer may not be joined with remembrance? For I trust Bristow is not so brutish, to say that all memory is a prayer. But how skillful is he, to compare the memory of imprisonment, which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned, with the memory of rest which being obtained, what should we pray for? As for the words in S. James his Mass, which was written by some Sir James, many hundredth years after Origen's death, I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude unto them.

Where Cyprian saith, that Victor deserved not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests, I shown by diverse good reasons, that he meaneth not of prayer for him, but such as was of thanksgiving for the dead, and for the like godly departure of the faithful living. For his offense in making a Clarke executor, was not to be punished with eternal torments, whereto Bristow answereth by telling of three things done in their Mass, which he saith were done in Cyprians time, but that is the matter in controversy. my reasons alleged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all.

I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. Councils at once, the Council of Carthage the 4, Cap. 95. & the Council of Vase, which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the dead, which they had bequeathed to the use of the poor: Allen saith to excommunicate them, that hinder the oblations for the dead. Now cometh Bristow and saith, it is but mere cauelling to distinguish oblations of the dead, & oblations for the dead, because Cyprian saith, there should be no offering for Victor. I have shown, Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thanksgiving, and this discipline was not to cut him from the Church, but an admonition to other. As for the other Councils of Toledo 11. Bracharense, with this of Carthage and Vase, I have answered Pur. 426. against which, Bristow here saith nothing, but repeateth them with his usual interlardings.

The Council Bracharense, which I twice promised to show forth against Purgatory, when I came to it, Bristow saith, I plainly confess the contrary, to wit a memory for the dead. I said that for them that kill them selves, that Council decreed, that no commemoration should be made. Ca. 34. & what this commemoration i • , I said it appeareth in y ^e next Canon, where they cal it the commemoration of the holy oblation, that is, they decreed, that no communion should be celebrated, in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, no mention of them that so died should be in their thanksgiving, as was used for them that died well.

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

Bristow cauelleth, that although in carrying the corps to the grane, they used to singe psalms, yet they might have prayer & oblation for their souls in the Church. I answer, the council thinketh singingof psalms sufficient for the office of their burial, therefore prayer and oblation were thought needless. But that they had prayer and oblation in Spain, for the dead, he would prove by a saying of Augustine De cur. pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custom of the universal Church is, that in the prayers of the priest, which are made to God at the altar, the commendation also of the dead hath his place. This commendation might be without prayer, as in the old liturgy the oblation for all the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles &c. or if it were in special form of prayer for the dead in Africa, it proveth not that it was in Spain. For Augustine speaketh of the universal Church, no farther then his own knowledge, or if it were in his time, it might afterward be reformed in Spain, as diverse other errors were, namely in that Council of Toledo, and other before it. But Bristow urgeth me farther, and saith, I might as well say, the Papists pray not for the dead, because they carry the corps with psalms. But he will never see the little word, only, joined in the Canon to psalms, nor the sufficiency of the office for the burial of all Christians. Again he demandeth of De profundis, being a psalm, Is it not a prayer for the dead, trow you? I trow no. Except all prayers that men make for them selves, be prayers for the dead.

As for the burial of papists, claimed by ministers in England, I think you belie them, for they could be content you had all the obstinate papists in your bosom at Loueine, quick and dead: But such as die among us, we are not nice in denying them burial in the usual cemiteries, although we communicate not with them in their life, yet always protesting, that more severe discipline were meet for them in their life, and to be executed upon them even in their death, after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor.

I said farther, that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funeral of Saint Augustine, proveth that the sacrifice offered for the commending of his bodies deposition, was the sacrifice of thanksgiving. Here first Bristow accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity, that I understand deposition for the putting of his body by death, where it is the laying down of it in the earth, as Leuatio corporis, is the taking up of Saints bodies or relics, a worshipful witness of antiquity. For Cyrillus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. Julian. But mark how skillfully Bristow expoundeth Possidonius, saying, The sacrifice was offered to God, for the commending of his bodies deposition. That is, saith Bristow (expositione prima) for the laying down of it in the earth by burying. Why might not his body be laid in the grave without a propiciatory sacrifice? The second exposition is, that by commending the deposition of his body, which is the laying it down in the grave, he meaneth, the commendation of his soul to God.

With such expositions he may prove what he will out of the Doctors. But to admit this monstrous interpretation, how agreeth it with popery? or Augustine's own opinion, that seeing he was a perfect man & died in persecution, while his City was besieged, & the same day it was taken, that any sacrifice, should be offered for his soul, seeing he himself saith, it is injury to pray for a Martyr, De Verb. Ap. 517? But that prayers for the dead were used in Saint Augustine's time, and at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, it is not of me denied, and therefore needed not of Bristow to be proved. But he will make me both answerer and replyer, Because I grant that S. Augustine prayed for his parent, and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui, a memory of her to be a memory for her, as though she would have her son to be a Chantrie Priest, to sing for her.

First I say, that if the Pope himself, translate Memoriam sui, a memory for her, the translation is false. Secondly, where he saith, the sacrifice of our price was offered for her: I shown that before, that so he called the celebration of the Lord's Supper, understanding it nevertheless not to be the sacrifice it self, that being once offered, did perfectly redeem us, but a memory and thanksgiving for the same, as I shown out of Augustine and other Doctors, Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest unto the leaf 327.

Finally, Bristow citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers, the whole Church doth observe, that for them which are departed in the communion of Christ's body and blood, when at the healthful sacrifice they are remembered in their place, prayer is made, and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also: I answer this oblation, being general for all that are departed in the faith of Christ, can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine, as they called it, in remembrance of the only and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ, as S. Augustine calleth his propitiatory sacrifice, could be no propitiation, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or prosperity, or praise. August. Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. & 21. Contra adverse. Leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19. 20. and many other places through out his works.

Of particular Doctors. Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatory.

That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead, Bristow citeth many places but without need, seeing I con • esse it: but that he never doubted of Purgatory, that is not proved thereby. The Grecians at this day deny Purgatory, yet do they allowpraier for the dead. Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher. Chapter. 69.

Bristowes answer is, that there are two Purgatory fires, the one to punish souls for sin, whereof S. Augustine is certain: the other not to punish sin, but only to wear out by little & little, such affections to wordly lawful things, as to wiue, &c. that without grief of mind, he cannot parte from them, so as the other which built Golde, &c. whereof Augustine is uncertain. Afterwarde he concludeth, they are two operations of one Purgatory, the one to purge sin with punishment, the other to purge worldly lawful affections. If there be but one Purgatory fire, Augustine doubteth not only of the punishment, but of the purging fire. But Augustine speaketh not of purging lawful affections, for what purgation should there need, where no unlawful thing is to be purged? But of unlawful affections of worldly lawful things, which are loved so far above measure, that they cannot be lost for Christ's sake, without grief: these Cupiditates greedy desires, Augustine calleth the wood, Strawe, and stubble, which is built upon the foundation Christ, upon whom it is sin to build anything, but Golde, Silver, or pearls, &c. 1. Cor. 3. so that it is sin that Augustine speaketh of. Whereof he doubteth, whether it is purged by a Purgatory fire after this life. Again utterly excluding impenitent sinners, from hope of this purging fire, it is manifest, that of penitent sinners he maketh this doubt, whether they may be saved by this Purgatory fire, after their death. Wherefore Bristows distinction is clean contrary to Augustine's meaning. Likewise where he maketh a doubt whether such worldly lawful affections remain in the souls of the elect, departed, as love of wife &c. he shamefully slandereth Saint Augustine, as though he held any such opinion, when no such thing can be gathered out of his words falsifying to his purpose the Doctors words, which are Rerum secularium quamuis licite concessarum tales cupiditates: Such greedy desires of worldly, although things lawfully granted, to call them such worldly lawful affections, whereas Augustine saith not, that such affections are lawful, but that the worldly things are lawful, on which such affection is set. Likewise Ad Dulci. question. prima. he bringeth for example, a certain carnal affection toward riches, a cogitation of those things which are of this world, how a man should please his wife &c to be this wood, haie, &c. and likewise doubtfully concludeth whether therefore in this life only, men suffer these things, or whether certain such judgments follow after this life &c. excluding again murderers, fornicators, liars periurers, &c. The like doubt he maketh De Ciuit. Dei Lib 21. Ca. 26. saying, that peradventure it is true that this purging fire is in this lite only, peradventure after this life only, or both in this life and after, but yet for all men to pass through, the perfect without sense, they that are entangled with these venial sins, with sense of pain and loss &c.

But Augustine (saith Bristow) showeth himself certain of purging pains De Ciuitate Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 24. saying it is certain that such men are purged before Doomesday by temporal pains &c. As for this place, being not found in many ancient written copies as Viues showeth, seemeth to be a corrupted place added by other, not written by Augustine. The like may be suspected of the place Cap. 13. of the same Book, where he reporteth what he had said before of remitting sins in the world to come, which yet is not to be found in that Book, as for the places of Enchirid. Cap. 110. and Ad Dulc. 〈◊〉 . 2. which he quoteth, have nothing but of prayers for the dead. Wherefore Augustine although he allowed prayer for the dead, to avail them remaining in secret receptacles, as he termeth them Enchirid. Cap. 109. yet he was not certain of Purgatory. Touching invocation of Saints (which I confessed Augustine to allow according to the error of his time) and prayers to be profitable for the dead, I said Pur. 317. that Augustine is full of doubts and questions in the matter, and first whether the mothers supplication to the Martyr profited her son, Augustine said, that did profit him buried in the holy place, if anything profited. Whereof I gathered, that he speak • h doubtfully. Bristow crieth out that I am past all shame: for Augustiue never doubted whether such supplication might profit, but whether the mother had any such cogitation. I answer, he doubted at least, whether such kind of supplication did profit or no: for the doubt of her cogitation was expressed before in another condition, Si quidem credidit, if she believe, &c. But to refell my impudency, as it should seem, he hath heaped up a sort of places, to prove that Saint Augustine clearly affirmed supplication to Saints to profit the dead: first, Non inaniter fiun • , they be not made in vain. Cap. 1. But these words are not in that Chapiter. He saith there Ne{que} Ecclesia inaniter, Neither the Church nor the friends care for the dead bestoweth in vain such devotion as it can: where he speaketh of prayers for the dead, but not of supplication to the Martyrs. Secondly he citeth Prosunt quibusdam mortuis, they profit one sort of the dead Cap. vlt. but neither are there such words, nor for such purpose. Thirdly, Non sunt praetermittende, they must not be omitted, C • 4. also, Fiunt recta fide, ac pietate, they be made with right faith, and piety, Cap. 4. These words in deed are there, but of prayers for the dead generally, although there also in the same Chapiter to his purpose which he noteth not: last of all, Religiosus amicus, &c. they be necessary, the devout friend must in no case omit them Ca. 5. the necessary supplications he speaketh of, are prayers generally, not that prayer to Saints, are of him called necessary supplications. But unto all the other doubts, which I in the place above quoted, had noted out of that treatise of Augustine Bristow speaketh not a word.

Whether S. Augustine denied Purgatory.

Bristow rehearseth my words (with such fidelity as is usual to Papists) as though I had said, that Saint Augustine denied Purgatory by the name of Purgatory, whereas my words are, that he seemeth to deme all other receptacles of the souls departed, beside heaven and hell. But of a third place (saith he,) we are altogether ignorant, neither do we find it in the holy Scriptures. Hypog, Cont. Pel De Verb. Apost. Ser. 14. Bristow saith, I answer it myself, in saying, he writeth against the Pelagians, that imagined a third place for the everlasting rest of infantes that were not baptized. But what saith Bristow to my reply? which is this, The same reason serveth as well against the Popish Purgatory, because we find it not in the holy Scriptures. Bristow asketh whether Saint Augustine doth so reason against it? As though that were material, when the reason will bind one man as well as another, and one matter as well as another. As for his opinion of prayer for the dead, as I have often said, proveth not a third place: as for the two places De Ciu. Dei. lib. 21. cap. 13. & 24. the one manifestly corrupted, the other justly suspected, I have spoken to them both already.

Other Doctors about prayer for the dead.

I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur, That no man can be absolved of the Pope after his death: and wherefore then serve the Popes Pardons? Bristow answereth, that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion, and not for excommunicate persons. Very well: yet are you not escaped. For where is the Popes commission for pardoning? Quodeunque, &c Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven, &c. if this be your commission, as well for giving pardons, as for absolving excommunicate persons, this commission cannot be exercised but upon the living.

(If I had pleasure to enterlarde the Doctors sayings as you have, I should add that we read not that Christ gave pardon to any in Purgatory.) He saith upon earth, for he never said, that he was to be absolved which died in his binding. Likewise that this authority given by this text, be it more or less, is to be exercised only upon men living on the earth: you may read, Bristow chargeth me with clipping, because I left out the last periode, which is neither to nor fro my purpose. Likewise where I said, he exhorteth Demetrianus himself to repentance, which had been a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians, he chargeth me with changing, for I should have said, which presently was. I changed no word of Cyprian, in saying, he had been, and a reasonable man would have understood me, that he presently was such a one, when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance. But what is the answer? This which is expressly written of Infidels in hell, and of baptism, I pretend to be written of the faithful in Purgatory, and of penance after baptism. I answer, Cyprian speaketh generally of all men, & not of Infidels only, & of all men in this world and not of Infidels in hell.

Finally after he had said, that passage is from death to life, the place by me cited, he addeth,

These words declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one mean of salvation, as well for the Gentile to be baptized, as for the penitent Christian by the only mercy of God in Christ obtained in this life, without any satisfaction of pain, forever after this life: and therefore he saith moreover, Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus, if he did repent, but even immediately before his death, and were baptized, that he should enjoy the same state of felicity, with all faithful Christians, in perpetual joy after death with Christ.

In like manner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this world, while confession may be received, and satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is acceptable to God, which he speaketh generally, as if he had said, no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest, availeth to them that are departed.

To the place of Chrysostom which I cited against himself: Pur. 251. Bristow after he hath removed the question from the cause to the person, answereth that no friend, no just man shall help him, that dieth in mortal sin, either committing evil or doing no good. I say no more but as I said before, Let it be compared with Chrysostom's other saying, the Homilie next before 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter. Pur. 242. If thou yet chance, &c. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead, I cited in Psalm. 4. Bene, &c. The Prophet did well to add on earth, for if he be not cleansed here, he cannot be cleansed there. I should have said, clean (saith Bristow:) for though he be not clean from venial sins, he may be cleansed there, as also from the temporal debt of his remitted mortal sins. But he forgetteth the word of the Psalm, out of which Ambrose maketh his note: Vt emundet cum in terra, that he may cleanse him on earth: why was it well added on earth, if he might be cleansed after this life? There is no cleansing but on earth.

Where Ambrose was alleged by Allen Pur. 104. to prove that every man immediately after his death, doth feel that he must look for in the day of judgment, I said Purgatory 105. I marvel wherefore it is brought in, if it be not to overthrow Purgatory. For if it be true, no man feeleth pain after this life, but he that shall feel it eternally. This last conclusion although Bristow confess, that Saint Ambrose him self saith it expressly in other places, yet he asketh howe I can infer it of the words of Saint Ambrose In ep. ad Rom. Cap. 5. which I infer not of his words, but of Allens words, citing the place of Ambrose, as though the words were these: And therefore Saint Ambrose saith: that without delay the good poor man was carried to rest, and the wicked rich out of hand suffered torments. THAT EVERY MAN (saith he) MAIE FEELE BEFORE THE DAIE OF IVDGEMENT, WHAT HE MVST THEN LOOKE FOR. Bristow leaving Allen, as he doth commonly, breechelesse, showeth the words of Ambrose to be otherwise, as they are in deed. Which I will rehearse somewhat more at large then Bristow hath done.

This that Ambrose speaketh of the difference of the pains of the damned, before Christ, Bristow by his accustomed interlacing would have it seem, as though he spake of Purgatory: for to sinners he addeth Catholics, to the impious or ungodly, beretikes. But he marketh not the conclusion, that such heat as they felt after their death, they should feel after the judgment. Again, Non latet he translateth might be partly known, as though that which is not hid, is not manifestly and wholly known. That I cited out of Saint Ambrose De bono mortis: That death maketh no man's state worse, but such as it findeth in everyone, such it reserveth to the judgment to come: Bristow saith, that Purgatory altereth not the state of the evil to worse, nor promoteth the state of the good to better, but every man's state is according to the merits of his life, nor he that is cleansed in Purgatory hath his merits multiplied or amplified, but venial sins and temporal debts taken away. In deed if the state of a thing were nothing, but that you will allow it to be, it were somewhat that you say: but who will say, that he which is in torments in Purgatory, is in as good state as he that is in pleasure or ease of this life? or that he which is discharged of such debts, as you say must be paid in Purgatory, is not in better state, then he that now dieth and must be cast into the scalding house, for such payment? But that you may understand he speaketh not of the death of the wicked, which must abie for it, as Bristow saith: he addeth Ipsa quiet fouet, it cherisheth with rest: this cannot be of the wicked to whō there is no rest, but to the godly, which all immediately after death enjoy rest, notwithstanding they be not all alike good, for of two sortes only Ambrose speaketh, the wicked in torments after death, because of their wicked life, & the godly in rest. He speaketh therefore of the godly that death maketh not their state worse, as he said immediately before, Quia portus quidan • ect, because death is a certain haven of them which being tos • ed in the great Sea of this life, desire a harborow of faithful rest.

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

Whether Purgatory be only for venial sins.

Standing upon Augustine's judgment Enchirid. Cap 69. and other places, I maintained, that Purgatory could not be by his judgment, for great offenses which by penance are made small. Against which Allen cited Augustine De vera & falsa poenitentia: that some sins are mort • l, which by repentance are made venial, &c. which if they be not purged in this life, require punishment a • ter this life, &c. And Bristow noteth thē more at large, as though I had not understood them, or not read y ^e book. The truth is, I made none account of y ^e counter • et book, but noted the impudency of Allen, that would cite it against the certain and known judgment of Augustine. Whereas this counterfeit book, if nothing else did bewray it, in the 17. Chapiter rehearseth the opinion of Augustine by name, and doth confute it.

But Bristow passeth impudence it self, while he alledgeth for the same with Allen Enchir. Ad laurent. Cap. 71. Where Augustine saith of the Lord's prayer in them that are regenerate.

But how doth Bristow prove hereof, that mortal sins are become venial • ? Which also in the next world he admitteth. Cap. 6 • . (saith Bristow). But what doth he admit? that small sins may be purged peradventure in the next life. What, B • istowe? have you forgotten what you held even in this Chapter, under the title (whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatory Fol. 250.) that he speaketh not of purging sins, but of purging worldly lawful affections, wi • h grief of mind, &c.? But admit he speaketh of purging small sins in that place, by Purgatory fire, as indeed he doth, although before you denied the same: how prove you our present controversy, that mortal sins forgiven, become venial, and may be purged in Purgatory▪ you say Cap. 70. Infanda crimina, &c. The hainou • offenses, if they be forgiven. Si conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remitiuntur: He granteth they may be saved by Purgatory fire, after this life. Good Lord, what will you be ashamed to affirm? There is no such thing in that Chapter, no nor in that which goeth before, these words are not. But after he hath declared his doubt of them, that have loved perishing goods, whether they may be saved by purgatory fire after this life: he saith, Non tamen tales de quibus dictū est quod regnū Dei nō possidebunt, nisi conuenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remit •• ntur. Yet not such, of whom it is said, that they shall not possess the kingdom of God, except unto them conveniently repenting the same crimes be forgiven. Here although perhaps you may gather, that such persons are not excluded, yet cannot you infer, that for their great sins remitted, they should go thither, but for their small sins, such as he spake of before. What the opinion is of him that made the 41. Homilie De Sanctis under y ^e name of Augustine, it forceth not greatly, seeing he doth not expound th • t place 1. Cor 3. as Augustine himself doth in many places: and yet holdeth that not capital, but small sins are purged with that fire.

8 Of Limbus Patrum.

I denied not but Augustine was of opinion that the fathers before Christ were in hell, no not in that book Contr. Feliciam. Arian. But I wished his reason to be marked, wherefore he counted it blasphemous to say, that our saviors soul was committed to prison in he • , because the souls of good men are immediately called to Paradise, much more the soul of Christ, who commended the same into his fathers hand, and promised to be with the thief the same day in Paradise. To this reason Bristow answereth nothing.

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

As though it were necessary therefore, that Adam in this place must signify that singular man: whereas it is evident, that rendering a cause why Saint Luke beginning the genealogy at Christ, endeth it in Adam, he disputeth first, of the mystery of our redemption generally, from Christ extending unto all ages: and saith,

I see not what great blindness it is here to take Adam for mankind, as well as the lost sheep: but admit he meaneth our first parent, which I denied not: of what skill proceeded it in Allen, to interpret these words of Christ's descending into hell, which is the matter there in question, when they are manifest of Christ's incarnation, to save all mankind both the Fathers and us?

The other place of Irenaeus Lib. 5. almost in the end, I said to overthrow the Popish fantasie of Limbus, I might have added also of Purgatory, where Irenaeus affirmeth, that Christ after his death, went into such a place, as all his disciples shall rest in, until the time of the general resurrection, which was the place where the dead were before. Bristow replieth, he saith not, that the disciples shall go into the same place y ^t Christ went, but into an invisible place &c. whereto I answer, how is it manifest that they shall go into such a place, but by the example of Christ, who went into the place where the dead were? And how can the text which he citeth, prove it? The disciple is not above the master, if every disciple should not go into the same place, but as you hold, some to a much better, some to a worse, whereas he speaketh of one invisible place, appointed by God for all the disciples of Christ.

And thus an end of all your caueling upon such places of the Doctors, as were cited by me. Which how rightly I have discharged from your manifold wrangling, that the indifferent teader might more thoroughly perceive, I wish him to compare your cauills with those places of mine, which you quote, where he shall see that you have taken greater pains to pick quarrels at me, then used diligence to defend your Author, whose books you have undertaken to maintain: beside that of every ten reasons that I bring against him, you have not touched one.

The tenth Chapter.

To Bristowes motives and demands, I have answered directly & purposely in a peculiar treatise, y ^t although he dare not join with me in answering of Allen directly, yet he shall be driven to defend his own brags absolutely, or else forsake his challenge shamefully. The demonstration that he boasteth of in this Chapter is for the most part, nothing else but a quoating of such places, where in his reply he supposeth to have confuted mine answers to Allens articles: unto which reply, seeing I have orderly reioyned in every point, I will not stand to repeat, where I have confirmed every answer, seeing this chapter of Bristow may be a sufficient register to all such Chapters, & partes of Chapters where y ^e same may be found. And for such points of his motives and demands whereunto he complaineth, that in mine answer to Allens articles I have said nothing, I must require both him and his readers, to have recourse to my Book specially written against his said motives, and demands. For in answering Allen, I could not prophecy, what arguments Bristow would bring in those books set forth by him so many years after mine answer to Allen was penned. But where he hath any argument or authority not directly answered before, I will here endeavor to satisfy y ^e same in such plain order as I have observed in all the rest of the book hitherto.

Omitting therefore the two first demands of Collatio Carthaginensis, and building of the Church, in the third of Going out, he saith that Against our imagined Church in the wild • nesse, we are expressly warned Math. 24 Behold Christ is in the wilderness, do not go out. This answer as senseless as it is, is borrowed of Stapleton in his demonstration of doctrinal principles, which I have confuted in a brief answer, showing that although we seek not Christ either in the wilderness or in the secrete places, no not in the Popish pyx, but in heaven only, yet we are to seek his pilgrim Church, in what corner of the earth soever she be, and seeing the holy Ghost hath expressly a • sirmed that she should be hidden in the wilderness, from the cruelty of the bloody Dragon, what impudent ignorance, or malicious blindness is it in Stapleton and Bristow, to say we are warned by Christ never to seek the Church in the wilderness? as though we were forbidden to see • e her, or else to acknowledge her to be where sometime she should be. In the 4, demand of rising after he would maintain 2 arguments, the first is this. Our first auctors cannot be named: Ergo they were none but the Apostles. This argument hath no consequence, and yet the antecedent i • false. For of many of your errors, we name the auctors, and of prayer for the dead, Montanus the heretic, until you can name us a Catholic that held it, which was more ancient then he, and although you would clear yourselves of theft, because you have not stolen that article but received it, yet seeing it came first from a thief, your possession cannot be just: and therefore ye must restore it to the heathen, from whence Montanus stoale it. Where I brought example of the heretics, called Acephali, and diverse other, Pur. 388. to prove that the first auctor of every heresy cannot be named; Bristow saith, that he findeth his name, to have ben Seuerus, & y ^t they were but a piece of Eutyches as the Puritans are of Calvin But when writers dout, & the common voice gave them their name, because their bead was not known, the coni • cture of a name, will not serve the turn. If they had added nothing to Eutyches, they should have been called Eutychians, as for the cavil of Calvin, and the Puritans, deserveth none answer. More like are the friers obseruants and general Franciscans, to those headless heretics, & the Eutychians. But Bristow being driven from the auctor, falleth to the beginning of an heresy, which being shown to have been later then Christ and his Apostles, is indeed an undoubted argument, to reprove an heresy. And the beginning (saith he) is shown by this, that the primitive name of Christians would not serve them, but they must have new names to be called by. By this demonstratine Logike, none shill so • ptly be proved heretics, as Monks, Friers, Nuns, &c who disdaining the primitive name of Christians, have chosen to themselves new names, as Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits, &c. Whereas the old heretics did not willingly choose the names that they were called by, but by like names, reproached y ^e true Catholics: which argueth y ^t the new name, except it be chosen by them • elues, is no good argument to convince heretics. Bris. asketh, if the Papists do acknowledge any founders of their faith, but y ^e Apostles of Christ? yea verily y ^e Pope & the popish council, which have given you new articles of faith, y ^t y ^e Apostles never taught, but y ^• contrary, as transubstantiation, & communion under one kind, &c. That Te • tul. & other latter writers do father prayer for y ^e dead upon traditiō of y ^e Apostles, it is no warrant for us, seeing y ^e doctrine thereof is not found in all the holy canonical scriptures, but is contrary, to the same, & Montanus is found to be the first that since Christ, taught prayer for y ^e dead. That transubstantiation was lately decreed, he answereth it was the name & not y ^e thing, as Homousion was always believed even before the Nicene Council, which first received y ^t name. A fit comparison: but how can Brist. say, y ^t transubstantiation was always believed? when y ^e common opiniō almost of all y ^e scholemen is, y ^t before y ^e determination of y ^e Lateran council, it was no heresy, to hold impuratiō or adnihilation of the Elements, and he himself confessed in the last Chapter that perfect transubstantiation was not decreed before the last Tridentine session. The second argument is this: your first auctors can be named after the beginning of the Churches rising w ^t their new opinions: Ergo their opnions were heresies, &c. To this argument I answer, denying the antecedent, for we hold no new opinion, but y ^e foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ, being the head corner stone. Where I take exceptions to Allens rule. Pur. 413: Bristow expoundeth his meaning, to be of such an opinion as is contrary to the truth, first preached by the Apostles, and upon his exposition not necessary upon Allens words, chargeth me with nugation or triseling, in adding mine exception, which is the same with his exposition. I pray the reader vouchsafe to peruse the place, and see if there be any drop of shamefast blood left in this blundering papist, which blusheth not to scoff at me for triselings when he doth nothing but cavil and trifle himself, and that without all wit, or reason, truth or likelihood.

In the 5. demand of contradiction of heresies in their first arising, where I had shown, how some few plausible errors of prayer for the dead & to the dead Ar. 39 by little and little prevailed, without any great contradiction mentioned in Histories. Bristow saith, It is a fond parte to tell why and how a thing was done, which was never done. For the Scripture Es. 62. and August. Ep. 119. Cap. 19. affirm that there ne should be, ne was any such silence in the true pastors, &c. I answer both the Scripture and the Doctor speak of silence, which may bring present overthrow of the City, or damnation of the Citizens. Otherwise the true pastors in Saint Augustine's time, not only in silence passed, but by speech and writing allowed, the error of communicating of infants and the necessity thereof, as I have shown before. And seeing prayer for the dead and to the dead, by the holy Scriptures, are convinced to be errors, it can be no justifying of them to say, no man preached against them at their first rising. And seeing the Histories of the ancient time are very few and short, it is more boldly affirmed, then soundly proved, that no man preached against them. Epiphanius doth not tell who preached against every heresy at the first arising thereof. And even some of Origen's heresies, of which Bristow taketh example, slept almost 200. years in his books, before they were openly contradicted in the days of Hieronyme, Ruffine and Augustine. Touching that I allege of the mystery of iniquity working in the Apostles time. 2. Thess. 2. Bristow chargeth me to say, that the Church of Christ wrought this mystery of iniquity, wherein he doth me open injury: for I know it was Satan which wrought it, but yet in the Church where Antichrist should sit, and not without it. He asketh whether my text say, There was no preaching against it. I answer my text saith, it was a mystery not revealed, and therefore could not at the first be openly preached against. But Antichrist being openly shown, was preached against by the two witnesses, Apoc. 11. although he were not espied in the first mystery of iniquity, yea when he was yet in fashioning he was preached against by Irenaeus, Pollycrates, and others Ar. 36. and in this book. Cap. 9.

The case of Cyprian and the Africans, being true pastors and yet contradicting the truth, and other true pastors denying that such as were baptized by heretics were to be rebaptised, I have clearly set down Pur. 413. but that Bristow can do nothing but cavil.

Allens rule is of the first rising of the persons, whereunto I require to be added that their opinion must also be new, which if Bristowes blind malice could have seen, he needed not to have painted his margent, with so many quotations, to prove that the true opinion was ancient and perpetual.

Where I shown Ar. 93. that the Pope in secret, & not by open contradiction, caused a most horrible blasphemous lake, called the Gospel of the holy Ghost, &c. written by the Friers to be privily burned, for shaming their order, which continued. 55. years, without reprehension of the Pope, or any, but such as were accounted heretics, Bristow calling it favorably, but a new scandalous book, asketh what fault it was. Verily such a fault, as proved him to be more zealous of y ^e glory of beggarly friers, then of Christ and his Church, neither can it be shadowed by the example of Augustine, at the first forbearing the name of Pelagius, while there was hope of amendment in him, and he not thoroughly understood his heresy. But contrary wise the Pope favoreth the blasphe •• ous friers and condemneth their reprehenders for heretics.

Where I said, this was an argument from man's authority negatively, & therefore nothing worth: No man preached against Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, at their first entry: therefore they are true. Bristow saith, it is according to the Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, that All heres • es have b • ne preached against at their first entry. Beside that he flitteth from errors to heresies, as though there were no difference between thē: those Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, are not yet shown by which it may be apparent, what men and of what names, and in what time did openly preach against all heresies, at their first entry, which is the thing that is urged upon us. In the sixth demand which is of the name of Catholics, where I said he is a foolish Sophister, that reasoneth from names to the things. Bristow saith he knoweth not in what Logike, I have that axiom. He is a great stranger in Aristotel, that knoweth not y ^t a carcase, although he be called a man, yet is not a man in deed: moreover he chargeth me to reason so myself in y ^e seventh demand, where indeed I do only deride the vain kind of reasoninge from the name to the thing, when the name is not rightly given, retorting the argument upon the Papists, who of us are called heretics, as we are of them.

But Saint Augustine reasoneth of the name of the Catholic Church.

I answer Saint Augustine doth not by the only name of the Catholic Church, as a sufficient motive, prove y ^e Catholic Church, but by many other weighty reasons proveth that she was justly called so, because the question was between the Donatists and the Church, not only of the Church, but even of the name of Catholic.

Where I shown Ar 6. that the Grecians are called Catholics by as many Nations, as the Papists: Bristow hath nothing to reply, but that the heretic Grecians and Latins, do not mistake the person, when common talk and books call Catholic Latins, or Catholic Gr • cians: therefore they be true Catholics. A miserable conclusion upon a false antecedent, for the Grecians by the name of Catholic Grecians, understand enemies to the Pope, and by the name of heretics Pap • sts, either Latins or revolted Grecians.

That in public edicts, by men of our side, papist • are called Catholics, it is more then I know, or think to be true, although edicts penned by papists or neuters, call the papists Catholics, as they call us, of the religion reformed, which appellations prove neither the one nor the other.

Where I compared the papists Ar. 67 glorying in the name of Catholic & Church, to the Infidel • ewes, criing: The temple of the Lord, when they had made it 〈◊〉 den of thieves: Bristow answereth, That our Lord • both in the Prophet Ier 7. and in the Gospel Math. 21. acknowledgeth it to be his Temple, although they in it were thieves and wicked persons. The place indeed had been the Temple of God, and therefore Christ used his authority as high Priest in purging it of corruptions, but of their making, it was not God's Temple, but a den of thieves, except Bristow will say that a den of thieves may be God's Temple. And although unto the godly, notwithstanding the corruptions, it was still the Temple of God, yet had not the ungodly the Temple of God, nor were in it, as in God's Temple, but as in a thievish den, so are papists in the Catholic Church.

Where I said, supposing we were not called Catholic • , we should not be in worse case then Christ & his Apostles, who not only had not that name, but were of the Jews (who were as rightly called God's people, as the papists are called the Christian world) called heretics and deceivers. Bristow biddeth me bate an ace of that, except I can show by predictions of the Prophets, the reprobation of the Christian world, in these days, as they show the reprobation of the Jews in those days. A wretched refuge, as though papists were only named the Christian world, or that the Jews were reprobated in the time of Christ's preaching, or the Apostles either, before the extreme obstinate refusing of the Gospel. Or as if it were not sufficient, to show the popish apostasy from the faith by those undoubted notes, which the spirit speaking evidently doth give of them. 1. Tim. 4. Beside this, Bristow derideth me, for requiring the Jews to use those names which they never heard of. And is Bristow so well red in the Scriptures, that the name of true Church was never heard of the Jews in his opinion, as for the name of Catholic I required it not of them, neither do I think we ought to be tried by the bare name of Catholic, seeing we believe not barely and simply the Catholic, but the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Which Church is not called Catholic, because it should be everywhere, (for that it never was, nor never shall be) but because that wheresoever it be in parts, it is one body of Christ. But here Bristow taketh me up for halting, charging me to be the first of all heretics, that say it is called Catholica, because it is Vna: but he playeth his old parts, for I say it is Catholic, because that being in diverse parts, it is one, so that my reason is not only of unity but of universality of the Church, which is Catholic in all the parts of it, being knit in one, and not of being in every particular place of the world, nor at all times in most places of the world. And with this holy Catholic Church of the whole world, our Church doth and always hath communicated, when it was not so openly nor abundantly spredde in so many Nations as it is now. And therefore Augustine in the place by Bristow quoted Coll. 3. Die, &c. reproveth as well the Roman; as the Affricane Donatism, whereinto Bristow manifestly incurreth, when most impudently he affirmeth, that the old fathers in their Creed, believing one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, meant the Roman Church, as though the unity, holiness, universality, and Apostolic foundation of Christ's Church, were nothing but the Romish Church.

Where I prove, that the Popish Church is not in every part of the world, and therefore cannot be called Catholic, in that respect: Bristow saith it is jump the argument of Cresconius, and referreth us for the answer to Saint Augustine. Con • . Cresc. Lib. 3. Cap. 63. but the answer is such, as he durst not set it down. For Augustine confesseth the Church is not called Catholic, because it is everywhere, (for it was not in all places in his time) but because it is to be dilated into all parts of the world, whereas the Donatists held, it to be only in Africa as the Papists only in a piece of Europa. And therefore it is false, that Bristow saith, both the interpretations of Catholic given by Saint Augustine De gen. ad Lit. imperf. Cap. 1. Because she is universally perfect, and because she is spredde over all the world, agree to their mother Romish Babylon, for she hath nothing perfect, neither was she ever nor at this day is spread over all the world, no not wh • re Christ is and hath long been named in Grecia, Macedonia, Moscouia, Armenia, Persia, Assyria, A Ethiopia, &c. in most of which places are the Churches founded, even by the Apostles themselves, and yet never subject to the Romish faction. It is also false, that we renounce the latter, for we communicate with the Church of all Nations, that hath communion with Christ, and farther the Catholic Church doth not extend. As for the names of Church, Catholic, baptism, heretic, schismatic, which he saith our Apostasy hath changed into congregation universal, ablution, or washing, chuser, and cutter, it is a most gross & sham • less lie, for although we may be heard sometimes perhaps, and not often to interpret the Latin and Greek terms, by English words, yet all that hear us. or read our writings, can testify that we most commonly and usually, yea daily and hourly use the terms of Catholic, Church, and Baptism Heretike, or Schismati • e, as often as occasion serveth to speak of those matters. As for the Greekish names of Priest, and Bishop, if they be understood, for such ministers, as Saint Paul meaneth by the names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we strive not for them. But when priest is taken for a Popish sacrificer, and Bishop for a Baptizer of belles, &c. we like the names no whit better, then the things. Otherwise it is not the •• unde of words, that troubleth our ears, but the pestilent poison that is hid under such terms, which our heart abhorreth In the 7. demand of heretics, where he chargeth me to affirm, that whosoever of true Christian • were called heretics, without doubt are heretics in deed: and therefore Aerus, Iouinianus and Vigilantius, so called and counted by true Christians, were heretics in deed. Of Arius there is no question, but he was an heretic, although not in that matter Bristow meaneth. The error of Jovinian we defend not: but Vigilantius, although baited by Jerome, was never generally condemned for an heretic. Howbeit, that which I spake but in de • ision, and imitation of the Popish manner of reasoning, Bristow taketh it as though I had plainly affirmed, such a principle, which was far from my purpose Jerome, and Ruffine, were both true Christians, yet either chargeth the other w ^t he resie in their heat. And what will Bristow say of the two general Councils of Constantinople the 6. & Nicene the 2? Will he not say they consisted of true Christians? Yet both the • do call, account, and accu • se. Pope Honorius for an Heretike. Will Bristow conclude, that therefore he proved so in deed? He dare not for his life. Jerome chargeth Pope Liberius with subscription of he • esie in Ca • all. Liberatus accuseth Pope Vig 〈…〉 us of Eutychianisme Cap 22. Yet Pope Syluerius by his Epistle, accu • seth his successor Pope Vigilius, yet are Jerome, Liberatus, & Syluerius commonly accounted for true Christians, and as for Liberius, & Vigilius, Bristow date not for both his ears say they were heretics.

Where I said, the Devil stirred up tyrants, Heretics, Popes, Saracenes, and Turks to destroy y ^e Church: Who (saith Bristow) that counteth Popes to be heretics, would so devide? Verily he that counteth Popes to be in an higher degree of impiety, then particular heretics, namely to be authors of Apostasy & Antichrists.

Where I object against this Popish rule, that the true Christians were of the Arians called, heretics, Bristow asketh whether they were of the Arians commonly called Heretics? Yea verily, as commonly as we are of Papists. Bristow saith, if we should in our talk & writing, say heretics simpliciter, as they do, we could not be understanded to speak of them. Yes in deed, as well as they among their own, are understood to speak of us. And what other thing is meant by the name of Papists, but heretics, and traitors, Antichristians, and Apostates, enemies to God their Prince, & their country. In the 8. demand, beside that which is confuted in answer to the 3 motive, he denieth, Franciscans, Dominicanes, &c. to be sects, because a sect importeth a diuisiō. And i • there no division between secular, and spiritual, Nominal, & real, one sect & another? S. Paul complaineth, y ^t Christ was divided, whē one said I hold of Paul, & I of Apollos, & I of Cephas, & I of Christ. And howsoever you will now extenuate your schoolebrals, & contrary sects, ech hath contended against other, as for y ^e truth of Catholic religion, & against heresy, as y ^e Dominicanes, & Franciscans, Scotists & Thomistes, that I speak nothing of y ^e Guelphes, & Gibellines, the firebrands of y ^e world, In y ^e 9. demand (of y ^e conversion of Heathē nations) if sufficeth not Bris. y ^e we hold y ^e same Gospel, which is taught in the writings of y ^e Apostles, which converted y ^e first of all Heathen nations, y ^t were converted to Christian faith: except wecan prove y ^t y ^e same nations are still of our religion But he asketh, if we will be tried by Affrike, (for example) whose religion we know by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Optatus, &c. Or if we have any better moniments of any nations religiō, he biddeth me to name it, and let us try it between us. How often have I named the holy Scriptures, the best and the only true moniment, whereby we may try what Gospel the Apostles preached, and into what faith they baptized the nations? And as for those whom you name for Affrike, although they testify of some corruptions received and allowed in their time, yet I dare take them for trial of the greatest controversies that are between us, of justification by grace, and not by merit of works, of the Popes antichristian supremacy, of the Lord's supper, of worshipping of images, and many other controversies. As for that brabbling of converting of nations by them, or us, it is not worth the while, but a matter of mere contention, which cannot be decided, but by trial whether they or we hold the true faith of the Gospel, for into that were all nations converted, that were turned by the true Apostles. As for the conversion of any nation into false Christianity, proveth not the conuerters to be Apostles. But Bristow bragging of their wonderful conversion of nations of India and Africa, (which no man reporteth, but lying Friers, and shameless Papists) seemeth to deny, that any were converted unto false religion, by any false Apostles or Heretics. And first, where I said, there are people in Ethiopia, which, by circumcision and observation of the law, declare that they were converted by the false apostles: Bristow opposeth the authority of Eusebius, reporting the conversion of Ethiopia to have been of the right stamp, &c. imagining belike that Ethiopia is so small a country, that it were not possible for one piece to be converted into true Christianity, and another part into corrupt. That there are such people as I said, Munster in his Geography of Ethiopia, doth testify. As for the fable of their Emperors submission, and the Abbots approbation of Popery in all pointes, may serve to play mock holiday among the Papists, they can have no credit among us. As great a mockery it is, that Bristow abuseth the saying of Irenaeus, concerning the Church of Rome in his time,

But the praise of the Roman Church of that time, is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time, which hath forsaken that tradition, and embraced new doctrine, never heard of, from the Apostles days, unto the time of Irenaeus.

Where I say it is manifest, that the nations of the Alanes, Goths, and Vandals, were first converted by the Arians: Bristow replieth, that in so saying, I declare that I never read the ecclesiastical stories: such is Bristows Logike. It were possible I had read them, and forgotten them. But what could I either read or remember in the places by him quoted? First, Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said,

First of y ^e Alanes, & Vandals here is no word, nor in any of the places following; of the Goths it is said, that Theophilus sometime their Bishop, was of right faith, and Vlphilas also, before his subscription, and consequently a few that were converted to Christianity, before the heresy of Arius. But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Goths, that was converted, and of the second also, lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted? There were two nations of the Goths, the one governed by Phritigernes, y ^e other by Athanarichus: Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus, sought aide of Valens the Arian Emperor, and obtaining it, put Athanarichus to flight.

The same history rehe • rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion.

And so being become an Arian, separated the whole nation of Goths frō the Catholic faith. This story showeth, that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conversion of the Goths: for Vlphilas the Bishop of those few, that were before that time christened, being long before perverted into Arianism, was the principal cause of turning both the nations unto Christianism infected with Arianism. But Theodoret, • aith Bristow, lib. 〈◊〉 . ca. 37. Who was a Catholic Bishop, of purpose to take from the Arians that vain brag of theirs, showeth that the Goths were first Catholics, and not as you say, first converted by the Arians: but only by false informations, & too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas, being another Balaam lead out of the way. This purpose Bristow dreameth of, for no such appeareth in his words And then showeth that by persuasion of Eudoxius. Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Goths, which before were lightened with the beams of divine knowledge, entered into communion with the Arian Emperor Valens, and so deceived the whole nation. Where Theodoret saith nothing contrary to other histories, which show y ^t Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Goths that was under him unto Arianism, and after Vlph • las turned the other nation, y ^e was under Athanarichus, unto the same corrupt form of Christianity, saving y ^t he is contrary to Socrates and Sozomenus, which affirm y ^t Vlphilas was brought into Arianism at the heretical Council of Constantinople, in the days of Constantius which reigned before Valens many years. That I said of them that were converted by the Novatians and Donatists, Purg. 337. Bristow understandeth of whole nations, & requireth my histories & authors to prove that I said not. If Bristow will say, y ^t none from Paganism were converted to Christianity by y ^e Novatians, Donatists, or other heretics, I will see what I have in store to prove it.

The conversion of the Moscouites by the Grecians, Bristow asketh whether it were before their schism or after, and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation, and not in time of their schism.

I read the conversion of the Moscouites, to have ben into the Greekish form of Christianity, An. Do. 987. Ioachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo. about which time, the controversy of y ^e proceeding of the holy Ghost, began to arise, but long before, the Greek Church refused subjection to the Church and Pope of Rome, which if you call but an emulation, you overthrow y ^e rock of your own religion, & break off y ^e band of your unity, which you affirm to consist only in subjection to y ^e Romish bishop.

In the 11. Demaund, of Brittanie, where I said the Acts of the Apostles is the best monument to show, into what faith as well this Island, as all other nations were converted by the Apostles: Bristow asketh, Whether the Acts of the Apostles were written to show into what faith all nations were converted, that were turned by the Apostles? Yea verily: they were written to show that the Apostles preached the same faith unto the Jews and Gentiles, which they received of Christ according to the holy Scriptures: and thereof the b • oke is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the practice of the Apostles, according to such instruction as thei received of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelve Apostles, preaching to any nation of the Gentiles? There is mention of the twelve Apostles preaching to the Jews, and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles, although it was neither possible, nor needful, nor convenient, that they should all twelve in person go to every nation. But what faith so ever any one preached to any nation, the same did they all preach without difference in every nation, that they converted. There is not one of the articles of the Creed necessary to salvation, but it is to be proved by the Acts of the Apostles, that they did preach it. But Bristow will tell us another cause, why that book was written. No sir (saith he) that book was written to show, only the beginning of the Church (according to the prophets) to wit, at Ierusalē, & among the Jews, and the taking of it from them for their deserts, and giving it to the Gentiles, even from Jerusalem the head of the Jews, to Rome the head of the Gentiles. If this were the only purpose of the Evangelist, (as Bristow most impudently affirmeth) he should have spared much labor in setting forth the sermons, and sum of the doctrine, which the Apostles preached both to the Jews and Gentiles. But let us hear Bristow go forward. And there Saint Luke endeth it, not caring to tell, so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paul (in whose person this translation was wrought, and not in S. Peters for causes too long to be here rendered) Thou must stand before the Emperor. Because his purpose was no more, but to show the new Jerusalem of the Christians, and so to lead them to it, to know what are the particulars that the Apostles taught. If this be true, all the testimony and report that he maketh of their doctrine, was beside his purpose: yea, the history of the gospel which he writ of all things, that Jesus began to do and teach, was out of this purpose. And he took the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus, to teach him the certainty of those things whereof he had been instructed, as Saint Luke him self had received of the Apostles them selves, whereas according to Bristowes imaginatiue purpose, seeing there had ben many writings of the gospel already, he should have sent him home to the new Jerusalem of the Christians, and so have left him to it, to know what are the particulars the Apostles taught. But where on gods name learn we, that whore of Babylon that sitteth upon the seven hills, Apoc. 17. to be this new Jerusalem on earth? when S. Paul. Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly Jerusalem, unto the heavenly Ierusalē which is above, and is the mother of us all: not to another Jerusalem on earth, and that the mother of all abominations of the earth. Apoc. 17. And howe falleth it out, that S. Luke having a purpose, so long and certainly continued, and so necessary for the Church, not in one word commendeth to us this new Jerusalem, on the seven hills, nor in one word maketh mention of that, which only changeth (if anything can change hell into heaven) Rome into Jerusalem, namely the translation of Peters chair or his person, or the least hair of his head, or thread of his garment to Rome? But this belike is reserved among the Apocryphal causes; as these are, why the translation was in the person of S. Paul, and not of S. Peter.

Where I required one of those nations, to whom the Apostles preached purgatory or prayer for the dead, to be named out of the Acts of the Apostles: Bristow answereth, continuing his former speech: And so withal you have one of those nations named; and that no common one, to wit, the Romans, which received of the Apostles not only that article you require, but all the rest which at this time it hath, &c. When this is shown out of the Acts of the Apostles, or any other Canonical scripture, I am answered. Where I require it to be proved, that the same Apostle which first converted Britanie, taught prayers or sacrifice for the dead: Bristow answereth, If you require us to prove it out of the Scripture, considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conversion you declare yourself to be but a pratler. At the least wise you declare, that you cannot prove it out of y ^e scriptures. But we can prove out of y ^e scriptures, every article y ^t we believe, to have been taught by y ^t Apostle or Apostolic man, whosoever first preached the saith of Christ in this lande, although our lands conversion be not by name mentioned in scripture. Yet seeing the doctrine of everyone of y ^e Apostles was the same y ^t is expressed in y ^e scriptures, we are able to prove, that he preached the same which we believe, considering y ^t we believe all that is written in the holy scriptures. As for y ^e confirmation of Eleutherius, which Bristow saith was an accomplishing of y ^t which was begun by y ^e Apostles & Romans, if he mean of a supply of doctrine, it is false: for Christianity having been in Brittanie planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius, and continued more then a 100. years before Eleuthe • ius; was perfect Christianity. To pass over y ^t pe • ke of troubles, in which Bristow placeth me, because I do quietly confess, y ^t Augustine brought much superstitiō into this Island, & yet: not the whole substance of Popery, but the principal & most necessary grounds of Christianity: where I affirmed y ^t in many things the faith & religion of the old Saxons, was contrary to y ^t the Papists now do hold, as by diverse monuments of antiquity may be proved, Bristow with a double negative, would have it seem impossible, Because in S. Bedes story, and in all his works▪ &c. we find nothing against the Pope, nor against any one point of his doctrine. What I have found in S. Bedes story, and other monuments of the Saxons religion, I have set forth in confutation of Stapletons Fortress. As for that printed Saxon Homily; which is against real presence & transubstantiation, which Bristow saith, was so soon & so diligently called in again, it is abroad in y ^e hands of many▪ never called in, that ever I heard of, but hath since the first setting forth of it, been printed three or four times, in Master Foxes book of Acts and Monumentes.

In the tenth and twelfth Demands of Miracles and visions, where I had cited the admonition of the Apostle, 2. Thessalon. 2. that the coming of Antichrist should be in all lying signs and wonders: Bristow asketh me, what Scripture telleth me, that after the revelation of Antichrist, there shall be none but feigned miracles? Whereas I inferred no such thing upon the text, but show even that which he blameth me not to have shown, howe to know seigned miracles from unfeigned, namely by the doctrine which they are said to confirm, according to the Scripture. Deut. 13.

Where I said, that Augustine De vnit. eccle. cap. 16. will allow no miracles and visions for sufficient proofs, without the authority of Scriptures: Bristow saith, I do shamefully abuse my reader, for he saith expressly,

Yea sir, but it followeth that the Church is not shown to be Catholic, because such things are done, but as he saith there and else where, only by the Scriptures. But Bristow will have me allow all the miracles that Saint Augustine speaketh of, because they were done in the Catholic Church. As though Saint Augustine made that the sufficient cause to allow anything that was done or said to be done, without joining that they were done to confirm the Catholic faith, Cyprians miracles could not justify his error. In the Popish Church, the sects of Dominicanes and Franciscans in their dissention, about the Conception of the virgin Marie, boasted both of their miracles, yet Bristow will not I ween allow both their miracles, except he will allow both their opinions, which were contradictory. Again, many things are feigned, even in the Catholic Church by perverse zeal, to confirm truth, as y ^e history of Paul and Tecla, confessed by a Priest of Asia Tert. de bapt. Neither will Bristow I think defend, y ^t all y ^e miracles contained in the Alcoran of Frances, Vitas patrum, Legend • •• rea, dormi secure, sermons discipuli promptuariū exemplorum, Festiual, and lives of so many Saints as are written, be all true, and none feigned, although they all serve to prove Popery. Wherefore it may be, that even some of those miracles that S. Augustine doth report, might of emulation and vnordered zeal be feigned by some Catholics, to win credit to the Church, against heretics. That Luther and Calvin whom he affirmeth, not able to heal a lame horse, attempted wonders, it is as impudent a lie, and gross forgery, as that Li • danus telleth, that Luther was begotten of the devil. And yet there be diverse horseleaches among the Protestants, that have healed more lame horses then ever S. Loy did, either when he lived, or since he was worshipped of the Papists as an excellent horseleach.

Passing over 5. Demandes, which he doth only name: In the 18. of destroying idolatry, he saith, that to all that he said, I say nothing, but like a cuckowe: You have not destroyed idolatry, but set up idolatry, not waying (saith Bristow) that I tell him according to the Prophets, that we have thoroughly converted all nations from idolatry, that we have made them forget also the names of their idols. In deed, that which Bristow telleth me, is of great weight, and therefore I am belike to blame, to wey it no more but as bare words without matter, and wind without reason or authority. Otherwise I think I have proved, that the Papists have converted few nations from Paganism, and them whom they have turned, they have rather changed the idols, then taken away the idolatry, or rather the very names, then the idols themselves, seeing there was never an idol almost among the Gentiles, but they retain the idolatry, under the name of one Saint or other. They had Castor and Pollux, you have Loy and George: they had Februa or Febris, you have Fiacre: that which Juno Lucina was to their women, y ^e virgins Marie is to yours. &c.

In the 19 Demaund of Kings and Emperors, Bristow saith, that although I challenge the Kings of the first 600 years, to be of our religion, yet I bring no proof at all, as though the proof of the doctrine of salvation received in that time, which we hold, is no proof at all. But I 〈◊〉 not answered so much, as that Allen alledgeth, •• we Constantine received the sentence of the priests 〈◊〉 at Nice, as pronounced of God. What need any 〈…〉 were to this? we honor it likewise. But Bristow such, I confess there was prayer for his soul, according 〈◊〉 the error of his time. And he addeth, that there was 〈◊〉 for his soul, with intercession of the Apostles, in 〈…〉 ose honor it was offered at their relics and their •• mple, and all by procurement of Constantine him self. Euseb. in vita Const. lib 4. cap. 58. 59. 60. 66. 71. First cap. 58. there is nothing, but that Constantine built a Church, which should be called the memory of the Apostles: Cap. 59. followeth the description of the same Church and his intent, that the memory of Christ's Apostles by that sumptuous building, should be continued always among all nations: Cap. 60. his purpose is shown, that he being buried there, might be made partaker of the prayers, that should be there made in the honor of the Apostles: meaning the prayers made to God, which many moved by devotion of that glorious memory of the Apostles, should make: Cap. 66. is nothing but a description of a magnificent funeral pomp prepared: Cap. 71. are those prayers which the people made for his soul y ^t I spake of, and beside that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

But of sacrifice for his soul, with the intercession of the Apostles, in whose honor it was offered, at their relics, there is no word: although by any figure you understand the Emperors tomb whereof he speaketh, to signify his soul, which is rather a rhetorical exornation, showing howe his tomb was honored, as cap. 67. he showeth that all the princes of the army, and the Senate, worshipped his dead body, even as they did when he was alive: which vain pomp, he commendeth as an honor appointed and allowed by God, to be given to the Emperors. But in effect you can show no more of Constantius favoring of your religion, but in that one error of praying for the dead: to which I oppose his commandment, laid upon Metriades bishop of Rome, to hear the cause of Cecilianus, E • seb. lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicene Council de lit. Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeal from the bishop of Rome, and other like matters, showing his sovereign authority over y ^e bishop of Rome and other Prelates. I said, that although Theodoret report, that Theodosius the younger, prayed for his parents fowls, yet the story saith not, that he prayed to Saint Chry so stome for them. Bristow opposeth the Tripartite story, and Theodoret in Latin lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter, & 36. where Theodoret in his own words speaking of the tomb of Chrysostom, saith of Theodosius, These words enforce not prayer to Saint Chrysostom, although prayer to the dead, was at that time erroneously practiced. That Allen citeth out of Ambrose, of Honorius standing by the holy altars, while the solemnity of his fathers funeral was celebrated, maketh little to prove Honorius to have been a Papist, although in that point I deny not (which cannot yet of those words be proved) that he might be occupied in prayer for the dead, according to the error of his time. One error cannot make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith, who is known to have been of that religion which Ambrose setteth forth in his writings, contrary to Papistry, in the most, and most necessary pointes unto salvation. The 40. days mind, which Allen would beg out of that place, to resemble their Popish months mind, I have sufficiently reproved, by showing the continuance of the forty days solemnity, without intermission. That the last day was one of the forty, and kept with singular solemnity (as is usual in such cases) which Bristow opposeth, cannot make a just resemblance of the Popish mone thes minds, which are a renovation of a mourning or solemnity intermitted. Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the general desection, to have been of our religion: Bristow in a lurious rage, noteth in the margent, Sce the impudent heretic, them whom he condemned before. But who is this impudent heretic, that condemned those Christian Emperors before? or where is there any word of their condemnation? Is there no difference between reproving of an error, and condemuing of the person? But let that pass among Bristowes impudent and malicious slanders. The Kings of the earth (saith he) have not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon, when they humbly adored the Church of Rome, and licked the dust of her feet, as they are commanded by the Prophet. Isaiah. 49. 60. &c. This shall be confessed when it is proved, that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christ, and not the strumpet of Babylon, although the Prophet speak not of bodily bowing, kissing, or licking. Where I name Ziska & Procopius, and George king of Bohemia defenders of y ^e Protestants: Bristow saith, it was an 100. years before the name, & much more the religiō of y ^e Protestants was coined, as though their religiō might not be before y ^t name was used to cal thē by? But y ^t Edward y ^e third was a Wicleuist, whoever heard? saith Bristow. And whoever heard me say or write, that he was a Wicleuist? I said, Ar. 34 y ^t king Edward & other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause: and for y ^t you may read at large M. Foxes story of Wickleue. Cōcerning the book of Caro lus Magnus, against images, I have answered Sander & Bristow else where. The book of Berttam is entitled ad Carolum magnum, although Trithemius say, it was unto Charles y ^e king, brother of Lotharius, y ^e antiquity of which inscription, is elder then Trithemius, except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation. But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fancy, & durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence & transubstantiation, therefore Charles y ^e King or Emperor did hold this opinion. He y ^t will read y ^e book, shall see he doth plainly express his judgment, against the corporal presence, and as for transubstantiation, there was no question thereof in his time.

In the 21. Demaund of Churches, where I say the Papists had won no more, if we could show never a Church, but such as have been built by Papists, and to Popish uses, then the idolaters against the Apostles, which could show no temples, but built unto idols: Bristow saith, the challenge were not one, because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion, we renounce Popish religion, but not all their Churches. The cause wh • e the Apostle renounced their temples, was for that many of them were not for the use of Christian religion, although if credit may be given to our country histories, the Pagans temples were converted to Christian Churches, both by y ^e Brytons & Saxons. But those conuerters, saith Bristow, were the founders of them: be it so, yet were they not the builders of them. Yet such as were built by Christian princes, were built that their souls might be prayed for in them, as that Church of the twelve Apostles built by Constantine the great, whereof mention is before &c. Of so many Churches as he built, only in building that one, he had that erroneous conceit. Where I say, the old Churches were built only in the honor of God, and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures, Saints, and Angels: Marie wellymet, quod Bristow: They were called Basilicae Martyrum & Apostolorū, the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches, &c. Ergo, They were not built to the honor of God only, but to the honor of creatures, when the old writers whom I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirm, that a temple belongeth only to God. And Augustine expressly denieth, that they were the temples, but the memories of those Martyrs, whose names they bare, and as foraltars, he utterly denieth them unto creatures.

Where I said, that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome: Bristow crieth, blessing on Jovinian. Whie Bristow, Was there never any Bishop of Rome married? Was there no priest married in Jerome and Augustine's time, although Jovinian could not persuade any priest which had purposed continency to marry? To that I said of many of the Cathedral Churches in England, built for preachers and their wives to dwell in, Bristow saith, I have won a whetstone as big as a mountain, but against the authority of the histories, Ranulph. Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens. and other which I cited, Bristow bringeth nothing, but railing in filthy terms, meet for the college of Cardinals life, & not for the holy estate of matrimony.

Where I show the differing form of the chauncels & altars of the ancient Churches, with cross yles from the latter Popish erections: Bristow maketh me a souden proctor of theirs, as though a chauncel and altar, a cross bar, might not be named but by a Papist. Yea, he maketh me contrary to myself, for saying that Popish chauncels, which are at the East end of Churches, are but late additions: and sanctifieth, that we can abide no chauncels, no cross yles, no length to the East, &c. of which things we make small account, either to have thē, or to be without them. But it is more material, that he saith, Cōstantinus had tabernaculum crucis, a tabernacle or moucable Church of the cross, whereas we can abide no cross or rood in our Churches, Euseb. in vit. Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56, Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places show, that in his wars he used to have a tent or tabernacle, as a Church, for prayer and ministration of the sacraments: the first place only calleth it tabernaculum crucis, which might be of y ^e form; but of any cross that was in it, there is no mention, and much less of a rood, which is a cross with an image on it. As for the cross which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola, saith was kept in the Church of Jerusalem, worshipped by the Bishop and the people, if it were true, yet it proveth not creeping to the cross on Good Friday, as Bristow saith, for there might be worshipping without creeping, or Popish worshipping either. Again, worshipping of that same cross that Christ died on, proveth not creeping to any idol of it. Finally, where he would prove out of Paulinus and Beda, the multitude of altars in one Church, he laboreth in vain. Eusebius whom I cited, is clear both of the unity of the altar in his time, and of the manner of standing, which was not after the popish manner. Of like wisdom it is, that he will not allow me to talk of chalices of wood and glass, because I say their vestments be as good stuff as their chalices, which the old Church knew not. Thereof he chargeth me not 〈◊〉 have-read in Theodoret, lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra &c. Holy cope woven with golden threads, which Consta • tinus gave to the Bishop of Jerusalem, that he might wear it, when he did baptize. Yes I have read it, but I spake of an elder Church then Constantine's time, in which such pomp was not used. And yet that robe is lewdly translated of Bristow a cope. Although neither the Papists in baptism, have always, or ordinarily worn a cope. The rest that he citeth, out of antiquity for gorgeous attire, and golden chalices, partly is false, and partly superfluous. For Ornatus, is by him translated into ornaments. Valens commended Saint Basil, Quod tanto ornatu támque decenter &c, that with so great comeliness and so decently, he exercised his priestlie office. Again, Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 21. showeth that Chrysostom's priests taken by force in ornatu vt erant, in their attire as they were, which was but a white garment, as appeareth by diverse places of Chrysostom in Matth. Hom. 85. &c. Likewise he asketh whether there were such need for redeeming captives, building of Churches, or that requies defunctorum might be at the burial of the dead, that chalices were broken and sold, seeing Ambrose alloweth, but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices. As though Ambrose spake of buying of Trentals of Masses, with the price of the chalices, where he saith, Off. lib. 2. cap. 28. Nemo potest dolere, quia in sepulturis Christianor •• n requies defunctorum est. No man can be grieved, because in the burial of Christians, the rest of the dead is. Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of burial, which is y ^e third cause,

Yet he asketh, if I be not ashamed, to cite such places of antiquity, seel hate chalices, because they be chalices, and because they be consecrated? Whereas I said nothing against the necessary use of cups in the Communion, but of the superstitious pomp of the Papists in their golden chalices, and idolatrous manner of consecrating them: while they suffer the poor to starve for lack of necessary susten • nce, but once again most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say, that the sacred chalice is called there a vessel of our Lord's blood, and gold in which our Lord's blood is poured: where he speaketh of breaking the cups, before they be sold, least they should offensively be abused to wicked purposes. But there, saith he, is not any such word of them, and in the midst of the chapter, where these words are, they are not spoken of the material cup, but of the godly use of them, when they are sold to redeem captives, answering the objection of such things, that be once dedicated to God's service.

And again,

But seeking to give the Papists a blow, Bristow saith, I care not though the stroke light upon the Primitive Church, which had vessels of gold, not only in these princely buildings erected by Constantine &c: but also in y ^e crypts or caves of y ^e earth, in time of persecutiō. How Ambro • e and Acacius used, & thought these gold̄ vessel • best bestowed, I have shown. But in the persecution time, howe proveth Bristow they had such plenty of gold and silver? Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet, who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence, and r • quiring the treasures of the Church, as the cups of gol • e and silver in which they did sacrifice, and set their wax candles. But what answer did Laurence the Deacon return, what chalices or candlesticks did he render, but the poor that were relieved by the aims of the Church and sale of the golden vessels, if they had any, as witnesseth S. Ambrose in the place before cited?

Where I affirm, the ancient Churches were without images, because the tempse of God, and images cannot agree &c. Bristow saith, I may roll in such rhetorike before fools, that receive our absurd principles, to wit, That the idols of the Pagans, were images of the Christians. But thinketh Bristow, that any of our auditors is so foolish, to believe so absurd a principle, as he is malicious in feigning us to affirm such an impossible paradox? I am sure, it never entered into the opinion of any preacher, to imagine, that the idols of the Pagans were the images of Christians. But this we say, that Popish images, although they be not the same that were the images of y ^e Heathen, yet they are as abhominable idols as theirs, & the worshipping of them as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshipping of the images of the Gentiles, and for proof of that, neither you, nor Sander shall ever find me non plus, as you say you make me, by denying y ^t absurd principle, which is of your own fantastical imagination, and not of our ignorant and unlearned affirmation, as you feign it. As touching our livings, we are nothing discouraged by the story of Ambrose de Basilicis tradendis, but that we may enjoy them with a better conscience, then you compare us, with the Arians, and our most Christian Prince, to the Arian Empresse.

In the 22. Demaund of service of the Church, howe vainly he affirmeth the service of the primitive Church, to be the same that the Popish Church now hath, because two errors of prayer for the dead, and to Saints, were in the old Church, of three or four hundredth years after Christ, I will not tarie to declare. But where I note out of S. Augustine, affirming that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs: seeing prayer is a sacrifice, that therefore it ought to be offered only to God: and that Martyrs were not called upon in the time of the sacrifice, but only named for remembrance: Bristow to prove that they were called upon, contrary to the express words of Augustine, citeth Augustine, Tract in John. 84. speaking of the blessed Martyrs:

These words prove not, that they did in public service call upon the Martyrs with solemn prayers, but only interpret, what Augustine supposed the meaning of the public liturgy to be, in that place, where the Martyrs were named among other that are in rest, for whom they did pray, as appeareth more plainly, by the other place, which Bristow quoteth Note also in the former sentence, that they prayed for them that did rest in peace; therefore they prayed not for deliverance out of purgatory, where they are said to be in pain without rest. The other places, which he noteth, of private persons praying to Saints, proveth not, that such prayer was used in the public service of the Church, which although perhaps it were not sincere in all points, yet was it much elder, than the error of invocation of Saints. Where I note that no sacrifice was to be offered unto Martyrs: Bristow saith, it is to be understood, of external sacrifice, as though the Christians had any but eucharistical or of prosperities But admitting his distinction of external and internal sacrifice, howe are the Gentiles answered by Saint Augustine, that we worship not Saints as God's, when we offer spiritual sacrifice to them, which is most proper to God, which is a spirit, and challengeth the spiritual worship unto him self? You might as well grant them external temples, as spiritual sacrifice, and much rather. For if they must have spiritual and internal sacrifice, they must have a spiritual and internal temple, wherein and upon which, it must be offered; which is all one, as if you will dispossess the holy Ghost of his temple, and set up another altar in man's heart, to offer up sacrifice unto Martyrs thereupon. But Bristow, as it were, giving over his former distinction, saith prayer to Saints, is no more a sacrifice to Saints, then those dishes of meat, which of some Christians were superstitiously brought into the Churches, as Augustine showeth, to be sanctified by the merits of the the Martyrs, de ciuit. lib. 8. cap 27. But the Prophet saith, A troubled spirit, (which sendeth forth prayers) is a sacrifice unto God, Psal. 51. and therefore ought not to be offered to creatures; and Psal. 140. he desireth, that his prayer may be as incense, & the evening sacrifice, &c.

Concerning ceremonies, he chargeth me to refuse all, by mine argument of authority of God's word negatively, and yet in other words to allow some. Who so will confer the places, shall easily see his witless and senseless cauelling. I refuse all superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies, but the word of God alloweth such as are necessary for order and decency, not hindering, but furthering edification. The order of service and ministration, which Justinus describeth the Church to have used, containeth a sum of all that we use in our liturgy. Bristow saith, it is the sum of the Mass also, and there is water mingled with wine, plain against the Communion book. As for the mingling of water with wine, howe proveth he, that it is named as a necessary ceremony used in that time, and not rather to declare, how soberly the Christians used wine in those meetings, which were so maliciously slandered? But if it were a ceremony, what hath it contrary to the communion book, which although it require no more then Christ used, yet it forbiddeth not the addition of water, if any necessary occasion do require it? But I would fain see the mass disciphered out of that description of Justin, which Bristow saith, is the very sum of the mass. Unless Fulke be so foolish to think, saith he, that the Bishops sermon, the receiving of all present, the carrying of it to them that be absent, the rich men's offering may not to be omitted in any mass, or for any cause. What so ever may be used or omitted at any mass, or for any cause, I am not so wise, that I know, nor so careful that I desire to know. But is Bristow so mad, to make any endued with reason to think, that Justinus describeth, that which was seldom or never used among them, rather then that which was uniformly observed in all their meetings?

But out of the scripture I reason affirmatively rejecting all the beggarly ceremonies of popery, because God is to be worshipped in spirit & truth, and yet in another place, I admit some furniture: therefore (saith Bristow,) that I have misused this text, with much babbling to little purpose. Mine answer is, that although some external rites, are necessary for order and decency, yet the true and proper worship of God, is only in spirit and verity, and consisteth not in external rites, no not when they are best used.

Secondly, against popish lessons, responses, versicles, lewd lies and uncertain tales, read and song as God's service: &c. I alleged Matthew, 15. In vain do they worship me &c. Here he taxeth mine ignorance in the scripture saying, that the precepts of men are those which be of men and not of GOD. And are not lewd lies, and uncertain tales such? yea, all your vain distinctions of popish service: for which you cannot show any one commandment of GOD, nor allowance of the Godly Church, but of the synagogue of Satan, which your beggarly Logike craveth in this answer, to be taken for the Catholic Church of Christ. After this he chargeth me, to falsify the Council of Laodicea cap. 59. when I say it decreed, That nothing should be song or read in the Church, but the Canonical books of the holy Scripture. Unto which accusation, I answer, that I gave the sum of the Council, truly and without any falsification. That nothing should be read in the Church beside the Canonical books of the Scripture, which are there named, Bristow confesseth, and the words of the Canon are plain. This is sufficient to overthrow Popish lessons, where of nine, most commonly not one is of the Scripture. But Bristow will make three Councils of Carthage, ca. 47. to expound this Canon of Laodicea, where it is commanded that nothing be read under the name of the divine Scriptures, but only the Canonical Scriptures. If this exposition were allowed, yet Popish service is not discharged; for therein, the Maccabees and other Apocryphal Scriptures, which the Council of Laodicea doth reject, are read as the divine Scriptures. And as for matters to be soung, the Council rejecting Psalms made by unskillful persons, meaneth to admit none but either the Psalms and Hymns of the Scripture, or at least, such as are consonant unto them: and therefore would never have admitted that blasphemous versicle, or what the devil so ever you call it: Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos, Christ, scandere, quo Thomas ascendit. By the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend, Make us, Christ, to climb whither Thomas did ascend. Nor a great number of such, not only unlearned songs, but wicked and heretical ditties, that are contained in your Popish portuise.

Where I said, the festival days were kept of the primitive Church, not in honor of the Saints, as they are of the Papists, but only for the memory of the Martyrs, &c. to imitation: Bristow opposeth a saying of Augustine, which to imitation addeth consociation to the merits, and aide of their prayers. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. As for fellowship of their worthiness, is the fruit of imitation, the help of their prayers, is a smack of that declining time, which Bristow always obtrudeth to us, as the only primitive Church, which I understand for the first Church of the Apostles, and that which was most ancient next unto them.

Where I cite out of Augustine, de ver. rel. cap. 55. that Saints and Angels were of Christians in his time honored, with love, not with service; for imitation, not for religion: First Bristow asketh, whether he doth not expressly here avouch their honoring? Yes verily, and as expressly he denieth that they are to be honored with service of religion. But seruitus with Bristow, is not the Latin of the Greek word Dulia, it is but mine vnacquaintance is Saint Augustine's writings. If mine acquaintance in S. Augustine's writings, were as small as his skill is in the Greek language, I might be accounted a great stranger in them. But let us hear what Bristowes familiarity with Saint Augustine hath found of the signification of Dulia.

very well: therefore the old Latin interpreters judged Latria and Doulia to be all one. For even so have they translated Doulia, always by the word seruitus. as Exod 6. 13 20. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 5. Heb. 2. Wherefore Saint Augustine not finding a proper Latin word, to express the worship of God, and choosing Latria the Greek word, doth only show howe it was his pleasure to use the term, and not what the word doth properly signify. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differeth not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in signification, as even Soudas doth confess, although he say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a service, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) for wages. And therefore like a learned Grecian, Bristow, saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is synonomum to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is never used but for worship of GOD, or superstition, or religion: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a general name for any kind of service due either to GOD or men. But what shall I reason with such a block, as challengeth all authentical service, that ever hath been in any Church to be the Popish service, although it differ from it both in form and matter, even as before he said, that Iustines description is the very sum of the Mass.

Concerning the tongue in which the service is, Bristow saith, it maketh no difference in the service it self: but because I hold that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues, he will consider my grounds thereof. First, the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians, proveth it not, because he speaketh there of a miraculous gift of tongues. A strong reason, I promise you, nay much rather if a special gift of the holy Ghoste, must give place to the edifying of the Church, much rather an unknown tongue, superstitiously usurped, must be abolished.

Secondly he saith, Saint Paul doth not reject the gift, but moderate it, for the variety of certain, much like to some Protestants, that think all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth Pur. 7. It was not meet, that Saint Paul should reject a gift of the holy Ghost, but show the right use of it. But where Bristow noteth me to think all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth the place, he showeth him self to be a shameless liar: for although I exemplify such learning, as is most necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures, by knowledge of tongues and rational sciences: yet it followeth not, that I think all learning; or all learning needful for that purpose, to be knowledge of the tongues and rational sciences, much less to be the only knowledge of the tongues, as this proud Ass ignorant in the tongues, and almost in all good learning, without all foreheade, or with an iron or brazen face, doeth lewdly belie me. But if any man think (saith Bristow) that one may argue of that Chapiter a simili: Let him consider, first, that so, the manner of simple Catholics, who pray to them selves privately in the Latin tongue, which they understand not, is not condemned, but justified. A hard matter, to justify superstitious ignorance, by similitude of the heavenly gifts of God's spirit, which is the spirit of truth and knowledge. Yes, saith Bristow, he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men but to God. Yea sir, but doth he say, he that speaketh in a tongue which he understandeth not him self? Again the Apostle saith, he that speaketh in a tongue, doeth edify him self: Verily he that speaketh in a tongue, which he understandeth no more then a Parot, edifieth not him self, nor any other. Again he saith: if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding or mind is unfruitful: which words Bristow hath impudently falsified, saying, For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (or affection) prayeth, though my understanding be without fruit. Where not only he taketh spirit for a blind affection, which is meant of a spiritual gift, but also would bear us in hand, that Saint Paul justified prayer with affection void of understanding, where it followeth immediately, that he will him self, and exhort all other to pray, not only in spirit, or spiritual gift, but also with mind or understanding, which shall be fruitful unto other. But he saith further, as Bristow maketh him to say, If thou bless or give thanks in spirit, thou doest it well: Where neither his words, nor meaning is such, but speaketh of them which use that spiritual gift of tongues, to express godly prayer or thanksgiving, which serve not to edify the congregation, but doth not justify that what so ever a man shall speak in prayer or thanksgiving with affection, is well spoken, although the speaker understand not what he say. For howe can he bless or give thanks well, that knoweth not whether he bless or curse, in the words which he uttereth, with never so good affection? Lastly, he citeth out of Saint Paul: If there be no interpreter, let him be silent in the Church, and speak to him self and to GOD. And hereof Bristow will-conclude, that mother B. is justified to say her Aui Mari, Daminus stickum &c. As though he that spake in such a tongue as no man present could interpret, and he him self that spake it, did not understand what he spake: but spake merely in the air.

The second thing that Bristow would have to be considered, is that the Church in her public prayers, doth not speak in a tongue, because the Latin tongue is not in England a strange tongue, so as it were if one should say Mass at Rome in the English tongue. And why so I pray thee, Bristow? Because in England here and there one, understandeth the Latin tongue? Verily in Rome there be some also that understand the English tongue. Think you Bristow could have this consideration without his considering cap? and thereupon concludeth, And so the question is not now the same as was between the Apostle and the Corinthians: But whereas the Church would do all things for edification, the question is, whether this be obtained in the public prayers of the whole world, rather by the Latin tongue, that is to say, by the common tongue, or else by the several tongues, that is to say, by the private tongues. Whie, howe now Bristow? is the Latin tongue the common tongue of the whole world? You that have all learning beside the tongues, will you deny all other tongues to be common, but the Latin? But to let that pass, the Catholics have one answer to this question, drawing all • o common or unity, with a little help you may by the same cord, draw in the community and unity of Plato and the Anabaptists: but in the mean while, your edification is void of instruction. But that is a small matter with you, to drive all men into a common heap of ignorance and superstition, which is your drawing all to common or unity.

But to come to examples of the primitive Church, he saith I cannot deny, but that all nations of the Latin Church, had the service in Latin: I say, all nations that understood the Latin tongue, as their vulgar speech, but not all nations of the West, which understood it not. That most nations understood the Latin tongue, which he calleth an absurd position, he saith I prove it, by the Germane or French Councils of Toures, Magunce, and Reims, by which I rather show the decaie of the Latin tongue in those regions. But my proves are other then he is able to answer, and therefore he letteth them pass, cauelling that the Latin tongue was hard unto the people, where I show the decaie of it: As also that the French tongue at this day is in some places called the Roman, where I show the continuance of the rusticall Roman tongue in France, out of the Council of Turon 3. cap. 17. as though the French tongue at this day, were not much declined from the similitude which it had with the pure Latin tongue, seven or eight hundredth years ago. To the decree of the Council of Lateran cap. 9. which commanded, that Ministers should be provided, which according to the diversity of rites and languages, should celebrate divine service, and minister the sacraments, to people of diverse languages, being conversant in one city. Bristow answereth, the Bishops were not commanded to translate the service into English, and other vulgar tongues, but to provide Ministers according to the rites and languages in which the service presently was. Yes sir, they were commanded to provide Ministers to serve them according to the diversity of languages, that were in every city, where were people of diverse tongues. But otherwise Bristow asketh me, why it provideth for those cities and diocesses in which were people of diverse languages, and not for all in general. I answer the provision is general, according to the diversity of languages in any city or diocese. Last of all, he asketh why such translation was in no place put in execution? But first I must ask him howe he proveth that in no place it was put in execution? And although it were not, it declareth the negligence of the Bishops, not the understanding of the Canon.

In the four and twenty Demaund of Priesthoode and sacrifice, he chargeth us with apostasy, for translation of the Priesthoode, whereof must follow a translation of the law. Which apostasy falleth right upon the Papists, which translated the Priesthoode of Christ which he hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without succession, unto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood. But let us see what balde reason he bringeth, to prove that we have translated the Priesthood. First we have labored to change the Apostolical names of Episcopus and Presbyter, into superintendent & elder. So a translation out of Greek into Latin, or English, is a change with him: and such as may not be abidden, for he reproveth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian, an elder.

Secondly, I help another argument of theirs, concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchy is no part of Christian Ministry: by which I declare, that we have changed the Priesthoode of the Primitive Church, which had Popish Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcistes, Cantors, Acolytes, Ostiaries, for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named, either in the Greek or Latin computation of Grynaeus. I confess the names are ancient, and the offices in the Primitive Church, were some necessary, some profitable, but I speak of the Popish Hierarchy, in which nothing remaineth but the names. But Bristow thinketh I do not consider, that S. Paul nameth there, the only Ministers of the word or preachers. Yes verily: and therefore I exclude all these Popish orders, which are such everyone of them as may be and are given to men, that are no preachers or ministers of the word. As for the order of Christian Deacons, for ministering to the poor, and Elders of government, I know they are not to be sought in that rehearsal. But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith, belong to the ministry of the altar, y ^e Scripture speaketh no one word of them. Yet he saith, I may see the distinction of them, Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders, & 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priests do not labor in the word and doctrine. Concerning the first place, I know not what he meaneth, except he think Paul and Barnabas were not Apostles, before hands were laid on them, and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles. Or else, that those Prophets and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter, had now orders, which howe he proveth I marvel, specially seeing other Papists do understand the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth ministering, for their sacrificing.

As for the other place is of Elders of government, and not Priests of the Altar. That the ancient writers used the names of Sacerdotes, Leuitae, Pontifices, it was not because the ministers of the Gospel are a species or kind of them, but abusively, for a certain similitude of the Levitical order and Priesthoode, with the ministers of the word and sacraments.

Thirdly he saith, the Apostles, Bishops, and Priests, were made by other Bishops and Priests; ours by Lay men, as of Kings and civil Magistrates, which is an impudent slander.

Fourthly, we confess their orders to be good enough, because we reorder not them, which is false: for I said, their admission of the Church is a new calling. Bristow saith, that is a new way to give orders, showing him self ignorant, that even in the old Church, such as were ordained by some heretics, were received after they had abjured their heresy, to continue in the degree of the Clergy, as of the Novatians, Council. Nicene. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling, O your Divinity, O your Scripture, as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington, not to be a mock Bishop, but his excellent learning and diligent preaching &c. I pass over, as also the great preaching, which now at the last, is in Popish countries, where within these threescore years, was as great silence as in England at the same time.

Fifthly, arguments need not, where I deny all Priesthoode, but the spiritual Priesthoode common to all Christians.

Sixthly, If I will invent a third Priesthoode, he saith that the Primitive or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchizedek, and to offer sacrifice in bread 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 and wine as Melchizedek & Christ did. Beware what you say, of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you & Christ, as by Melchizedek: But you regard not our arguments, they be but objections. At leastwise I pray you answer our objections, or else they will be arguments to prove you all blasphemous usurpers of Christ's singular priesthood. But that you will do at leisure, & first you will prove your priesthood out of Augustine, Contr. adverse. Leg. & Prophet. Lib. Cap. 19 & 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchizedek, and yet but a sacrifice of praise. So that you have neither your sacrifice propitiatory, whereof the controversy is, nor your particular priesthood, for he saith:

Now who knoweth not, that the sacrifice of praise, is a spiritual sacrifice, common to all the Church, and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood? So that S. Augustine naming y ^e order of Melchizedek, alludeth to those places of the scripture, in which all Christians are called a royal priesthood, & Kings and priests 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but never intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ, confirmed to him by oath, Psalm. 110. and which passeth not from him, Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church. If you object, He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them: I answer although the ministration of the sacrament be proper unto them, yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration, is common to the whole Church, as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth. So that although a sacrifice be granted, yet a special priesthood is not proved. But the sacrifice of the cross was both of thanksgiving, & of propitiatiō, he troweth: and therefore the memorial sacrifice of the altar to be the one, what doth it let to be the other? This argument standing upon Bristowes trowing, and confounding the members of a division, shall have none other answer for me. The places that I cite out of Ambrose, ad virg. laps. & de virgin. Lib. 1. to prove that he useth the names of sacrifice and propitiation, improperly, as other of the fathers do, Bristow will not allow as sufficient, saying I might as well so argue, that S. Paul speaketh improperly, because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a living sacrifice. whereas the Apostle, Heb. 10. saith Christ's body by death to be made a sacrifice. And what offense is it to say S. Paul speaketh improperly, where he speaketh figuratively? as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow, there is great difference, but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it, which confoundeth the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, with the eucharistical sacrifice of Christians, as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Cross: the one could not be offered, without death of the sacrifice and sacrificer, the other is offered continually, the sacrificer living.

As for his rule to know proper and improper speeches, let him try to teach his pupils: when I am disposed to learn, I will choose a better learned teacher.

But now he cometh to answer objections. First I said the bringing forth of bread and wine, was no part of Melchisedeks priesthood, seeing the Apostle comparing him with Christ, in all things in which he was comparable, never teacheth it, as any part of his priesthood. This argument Bristow maketh to be of one place of Scripture negatively, not consideting it is the only place, where such comparison is made, and that it is absurd to think, the Apostle would omit so principal a part of Melchisedeks and Christ's priesthood. But Bristow will examine the text. First their vulgar translation, beginning at proferens, both gelding the text, & falsely translating At vero Melchizedek rex Salem, proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi) benedixit ei, &c. But truly Melchizedek King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the highest GOD) blessed him saying. What doth this context help him, which is as much to say as he blessed him because he was a priest? Bristow, fraudulently omitteth the parenthesis, and in translation, changeth the participle into the verb. But in the Hebrew (If we believe Bristow) the pointing declareth, that also the Rabbin's themselves take it in the same sort. What a great Rabbi is Bristow suddenly grown to be, since his departure out of Oxford? But what pointing should declare this, he showeth not, neither can I guess. The text is: And Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine: there is the middle of the verse: then it followeth: And he was a Priest, of the high GOD, there is the end: then it followeth, And he blessed him &c. In deed Rabbi Solomon, but not in respect of any pointing saith of the bringing forth of bread and wine, for a true exposition, First that it was usual to do so to men, that were wearied in war: also that thereby he shown, that he was not offended with him for killing of his Children, for he taketh Melchizedek to be Sem, the middle son of Noah: Secondly for a Mideash, or vain exposition, that it was to signify the Minchoth and Nesecuth the meat offerings, and the drink offerings, which his children or posterity, should offer in that place, not that Melchizedek in respect that he was a Prieste, did bring forth bread and wine. But all the Fathers do agree in this similitude of Melchisedeches Priesthood with CHRIST. I know that many do so, but one Apostle is of greater authority then they all, yet none of them all speaketh of a Priesthoode, to offer up the natural body of Christ in a propitiatory sacrifice, which is the principal matter in question.

But if Melchizedek were a Prieste, Bristow will ask me, what was his sacrifice, if it were not bread and wine, seeing none other is mentioned?

For my part, I am not ashamed to be ignorant of that, which the Holy Ghost hath not revealed. Sure I am, if bread and wine had been his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of Christ also: the Apostle would not have omitted it, which compareth much smaler matters in him, with Christ then that.

Where I say, it is horrible blasphemy, to challenge the Priesthoode according to the order of Melchizedek, which is singular to Christ: Psalm. 110. and Heb. 7. Bristow asketh, if the scripture say not, that there is one baptizer which is Christ, and yet all are not blasphemers that are baptisers. I answer, if any take upon him to baptize, with y ^e holy ghost and with fire, he is an horrible blasphemer. But to baptize with water, that is to be ministers of the outward sacrament, in which only Christ baptizeth inwardly, Christ hath called all those ministers of his word and sacraments. Show you the like calling for your blasphemous Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, or else your example of baptisers will not discharge you of horrible blasphemy. But you have another docterlike argument, when you have scoffed out my poor doctershippe. Were not all the rest in the old time the ministers of Aaron, but Aaron himself was Priest only in his own time, and after him everyone in his time was Priest as well as he, and therefore in that law were many Priests. He asketh the question, as though it were out of question. Were not all. &c. O famous and illuminate doctor, where did your docters hoode learn, that all the high Priests successively, (whereof everyone was a figure of Christ as much as Aaron) were ministers of Aaron? For you speak of high Priests, or else what mean you to say, that Aaron him self was priest only in his own time, for all his sons were priests, although he only the high priest in his time. Upon this strong foundation, you build a similitude and dissimilitude. So that the old testament was like to England since the conquest, having successively many Kings, But the new testament is like to England duduring the time of one King: who being but one, yet hath many ministers, as one might say so many ministerial kings. You show learning enough in this similitude and dissimilitude to make you a doctor after y ^e popes order. But let us under correctiō of your doctors hood, examine your cōparisō. The old Testament was like England since the Conquest, having successively many Kings. Had not every of those kings, many Ministers under them? And every Aaronicall priest had also many Priests and Levites under him? And was not Christ head of the Church of the Jews, in the several times of every the high Priest? Wherefore the old testament is as like to England during the time of one King, as the new in those pointes, but the difference is this: that the figurative high priests were many, because they could not continue, but by death were always changed: Christ being an everlasting Priest, hath a priesthood that descendeth not by succession: so that although he have many ministers, yet he only hath the everlasting priesthood, which is according to the order of Melchizedek, Heb. 7. As for your term of ministerial kings, howe well it agreeth to your shaven crowns, I will not stand here to discuss.

My third argument, as Bristow calleth it, is this: The Apostle to the Hebrews cap. 10. teacheth us, that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sins (and that but once cap. 9.) hath made perfect forever those that are sanctified: that our sins are taken away by that sacrifice, and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sins left. To this Bris • owe answereth, that I do not understand, what the Apostle meaneth by those that are sanctified; by their making perfect; by sacrifice for sin. The sanctified are only the new baptized by his judgment, for which he quoteth 1. Cor 6. where the Apostle saith: But now you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, by the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. By which he plainly showeth, that although they were baptized long before, and had committed many sins sithence their baptism, yet the cleanness of their washing, the holiness of their sanctification, the righteousness of their justification, they retained still, and therefore exhorteth them to keep it to the end. So that while Bristow (as he doth always) chargeth me with ignorance, not knowing what is meant by their making perfect: he incurreth great forgetfulness, even of y ^e Apostles words where he expoundeth, which are not only, he hath made perfect, but, he hath made perfect forever, them that are sanctified. So that if sanctification were restrained to baptism, which no logic can prove, yet it followeth, that they which are sanctified by Christ's death in baptism, are made perfect not for a moment, as these obstinate blind Papists teach, from which perfection they fall immediately, and must recover it by masses, and as Bristow saith, by penance, &c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered, hath made perfect forever, all those that are sanctified. That the purpose of the Apostle (in all that Epistle to the Hebrews) was no more but to exhort the standing to perseverance, as Bristow in so many words affirmeth, let him believe, that can think, the greatest part of his disputation, for the abolishing of all ceremonies, and sacrifices of the law, to be idle and beside his purpose. Likewise that if they fall, he telleth them that Christ's death will not work in them another baptism, but remedy he telleth them none. Verily there is no remedy, for them that make the death of Christ of none effect unto themseues, by an utter and universal fall from CHRIST. But it is an horrible slander of God's spirit, that he telleth no remedy by repentance, from particular faulles and daily offenses: when he showeth the perpetual cleansing of our conscience by the blood of Christ, Hebrews, 10. verse, 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance, verse, 1. and 12. showing the necessity of God's fatherly correction to bring us to repentance, Verses 5. 6. 7. &c. But I show great ignorance, where I conclude, that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the mass, namely to take away all sins committed since baptism, Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect forever by a sacrifice once offered for all. For Papists devide not remission of a man's sins between baptism and the mass. No: but you ascribe the whole in such sort to either of both, that you divide the pour of making perfect forever, from the only once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you think it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to have many ministers, and many ministries, as it were conduites to derive his purchase, & his redemption to his people. In deed, if he had not one spirit that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption unto all his elect, he had need of many conduites, such as you speak of, for which purpose he useth not the ministry of man, but the virtue of the Holy Ghost. The ministry of man is such as man can execute, that is by the word, audible and visible, to speak to the ears and eyes of men, and being •• i • red up by the holy spirit, to commend the whole effect of his word to the grace of God. But you think to avoid exclamation, if you ascribe nothing to any man, nor anything, but from that Priest, and from that sacrifice: as though it were lawful for you to take anything from the Prieste and sacrifice, and bestow it upon any man or thing, without commission: yea, against commandment, and against the excellency of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice, which being once offered need, no more to be repeated.

The scriptures thus examined, he cometh to the doctors: And first to Augustine, or rather Fulgentius, de fide ad Petrum. cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. & 292. to prove that the old doctors, vsinge the name of sacrifice, meant not the popish sacrifice propitiatory of the natural body and blood of of Christ, because he calleth it Sacrificium panis & vini, the sacrifice of bread and wine. Bristow replieth, that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ, wherein as it is cited by him, so is it answered by me, cap. 6. of this book. Secondly where he saith, In this sacrifice is thanksgiving & commemoration &c. Bristow replieth, that he saith also that in this sacrifice is evidently shown, what is given for us, & he is announced already killed. But because this is nothing to y ^e purpose, he compareth it to y ^e martyrdoms of Peter & Paul commemorated upon their feast at Rome evidently shown and announced by their very bodies and heads there seen and visited. A new way to understand old doctors, by practice of Idolatrous juggling and feigning of relics. If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome, so many Churches of Peter and Paul as have presently, or have had in times past, relics of their bones, were greatly deceived. For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome, his nether iawe, with his bearde is at Poyters, and many of both their bones at Triers, Saint Paul's shoulder at Argentina: yea a piece of Saint Peters brain was at Geneva, where it was tried to be a good pumice stone.

The second doctor is, August. de ciui. dei, lib. 22. cap. 10. saying, the martyrs are that body, which is offered in sacrifice, whereof I conclude, that it is not the natural body of Christ, but his mystical body, which is offered in a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Bristow answereth, that the mystical body is offered in the offering of the natu • ll body. But Augustine never saith, that the natural body of Christ is offered, but expressing what body is offered, showeth that the mystical body is offered. Nevertheless Bristow compareth it to the oblation of Christ's natural body, in offering whereof for his Church, he offered his Church to God with it. But how proveth he y ^t Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice? The sacrifice of himself was propitiatory for the sins of his Church, which before he had purged by his sacrifice, he could not offer as a clean and acceptable sacrifice unto God.

The third doctor is, Tertullian, which saith, that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded. Bristow saith, That in the name of that prayer, he comprehendeth all that is said and done in the mass, which to this day the priest therefore begineth saying unto us after the gospel, Dominus vobiscū, oremus, let us pray, & immediately goeth to the bread and wine &c. You may think I jest: they be the very, words of Bristow and his only answer. Yea, but there be reasons of this saying: Because that pure sacrifice is made & celebrated with prayer, as Jerome saith, by the p • iestes prayers. What are then the words of consecration? And because even the old house of those leuiticall blood sacrifices also, was Domus orationis, the house of prayer: Therefore the mass is nothing but a prayer. So is Tertullian answered. Who would not wonder at this clearkely answer? For I think no man can understand of what reason it holdeth.

The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church,

This cannot be verified of the natural body of Christ. Bristow answereth, they say the same. Yea do, Bristow? Is the sacrifice you offer, the body of Christ? Yea? doth the conscience of the offerer, sanctify the body of Christ? Out upon thee filthy blasphemous dog, if thou dare affirm it. But Bristow asketh Wether any heretic canpleade by their verdit, that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine? As though that were the question. Yea or also the body it self and blood of Christ, so as all Priests do in their Caluinicall communion, no less then we do in the mass? What news is this? do all Priests in the Caluinicall communion, offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papists do in your mass? I think even the same: for none that communicate with Calvin, do at all offer Christ's natural body and blood, and no more do you, although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to do it.

In the 25. demand of Monks, where I say the old Monks were nothing but Colleges of students: Bristow saith, in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis, in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes, and Idolatry, we have spoiled the Church of God, of great utility. But he saith further, they were votaries, and so they be not in colleges of students: their vows were not such that could make them other then students, they vowed to serve God uprightly, and his Church, when they were called, and they in Colleges which having once promised the same, forsake this holy purpose, have small commendation among students. I know in time superstition prevailed, and that which first was free, at last became coact: and that which was of conueencie, was thought of necessity, even as true religion declined, and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatry and superstition.

In the 27. demand of Councils, where I prove that Councils may err. First by the prayer usually said after the ende of every general Council: Bristow saith, the prayer is not in respect, for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies, but by reason of certain ignorances and frailties of their members: when in the prayer, they expressly declare their fear, lest ignorance hath driven them into error, which can be understood of none other common errors of this life, but of their error in decrees, seeing the prayer is appropriate unto the Council. And that the words going before, & after do manifestly declare.

Who would pray thus, in the name of the whole Council, which he thought could not possibly fall into any error.

That I allege out of Augustine, de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That general Councils are and may be reformed, the later by the former: Bristow understandeth of Councils not confirmed by the Pope, which may be reformed even by y ^e see Apostolic alone. That was a point more then S. Augustine saw. But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councils, where lacketh any necessary confirmation? This is a shameless eluding of the Doctors sayings. For first Augustine includeth all catholic Bishops, in possibility of erring in doctrine, not excepting the Bishop of Rome, then provincial, & last of all general Councils: only the scripture cannot be amended, as that which hath no error in it.

Where I said, the Councils are received, because they decreed truly according to the word of God, and not the truth received, because it was decreed in Councils: Bristow saith, I might as well say, the scriptures are received, because they are written truly: and not the truth received because it is written in the scriptures. But I say the comparison is not like: For truth is not so necessarily bound unto general Councils, as it is to the holy scriptures; and therefore both the scriptures are received because they are written truly, and the truth is received because it is known by the scriptures. It followeth not so of councils: that whatsoever they have decreed is truth, although the Bishop of Rome have confirmed them. Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretic, whom you hold cannot err in doctrine, which is an argument sufficient, to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions: The pope cannot err: The general Council confirmed by the Pope, cannot err.

In the 28. demand, of the See Apostolic, where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome, withstood by Irenaeus and Polycrates, when he went about to usurp authority over other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia, and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reproving y ^e Bishop of Rome, were not heretics: Bristow babbling about the cause of Victors displeasure, which is no matter in question, saith he usurped no authority, nor was so charged, but that his censure did seem to harp to S. Irenaeus, as if the Pope would now excommunicate all them that would not receive the Council of Trent, it would seem likewise to many, who confess he hath authority over all. But none of these Bishops, that withstood Victor, confessed, that he had authority over them, or that he could not err. But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with usurpation, where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure, seeing he followeth (as he thought) the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles. Likewise Eusebius saith, that Victor was sharply reproved of many, and namely of Irenaeus in the behalf of all the brethren of France, whom he governed. Yea, he saith expressly, that Victor with his censure was countermanded, by many Bishops:

Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor showing, that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things, wherein they differed, declared, that it was not then of Polycarpus or him self otherwise thought, but that the Bishop of Rome might err.

The other example, I brought, was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, misliked by Dionysius: Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 &c. & sharply reproved by Cyprian, accusing him of presumption and contumacy, Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus, and almost all the Churches of Asia, thinking that such as were baptized by heretics, should be baptized again.

Bristow saith none of these denied y ^e primacy of Peter. I say they all denied the primacy of authority, although Cyprian in y ^e same place saith: Here you see it had been in Cyprians judgment, a point of insolency and arrogancy in Peter, if he had challenged the primacy of authority, and certainty of truth against all men. But Bristow saith, when there was no remedy, but they must yield or be Schismatikes, because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them, they did like Catholic men, for all their Councils, conform their new practice to the old custom, and quoteth August. de bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. & 25. where there is no such matter, also he referreth us to his fifth Demaund, where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified. Only cap. 6. Dionysius changeth his judgment, being admonished in a vision, and that he had learned that not now only, but of old time, both in Africa and other places, the truth was received, &c. but of any constraint for fear of being Schismatikes, if they dissented from the bishop of Rome, there is no word.

The place of Jerome ad Euagrium, which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custom of the whole Church, against a custom of the Church of Rome, Bristow saith, doth not prove a Church, a rule of truth, and Christianity, without the bishop and Church of Rome, because Jerome saith, as also there I cite: Nec altera &c. we must not think, that there is one Church of the city of Rome, and another of all the world, &c. By which words, he showeth, that the Church of Rome, if she will be a member of the Catholic Church, must conform her self to the Church of all the world, and not the Church of all the world conform her self to the Church of Rome.

Where I say, we believe the Catholic Church, hath no chief governor on earth but Christ, unto whom all power is given in heaven and earth: Bristow objecteth: suppose, that one Christian King or Emperor should reign sometime, as far as the Church reacheth. To this impossible supposition, I answer, that one King should have no more authority, than every King hath now. But Bristow objecteth, that Kings and Queens be no more named among S. Paul's officers, &c. Ephes. 4. & 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritan belike, I would pull them down. In the motive of Apes, he discharged me from being a Puritan, by his censure; but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritan so far, that I should also be a traitor, as he and all his fellows are. To his wise objection I answer, that as Kings and Queens are not named among Saint Paul's officers, so they are no Ecclesiastical, but civil Magistrates, and the Church may be without them, as it was many hundredth years. Yet when Kings and Queens are Christians, they have chief authority over persons and in causes Ecclesiastical, as far as the godly Kings of Israel and Judah had, David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, &c.

But Christ professing that all power is given him, Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authority, he might commit what authority he would, and therefore biddeth all his Apostles go, teach, and baptize • and to one of them singularly, feed my lambes and my sheep. No marvel, though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproved, when such learned conclusions come from Bristow. Christ said to one, feed my lambes and sheep, therefore he said it singularly, and he hath universal charge, and all his successors to. But for the Popes supremacy, the Apostle saith expressly, 1. Cor. 12. the head (under Christ) cannot say to the feet, you are not necessary to me. But who taught you to foist in your own gloss, under Christ? when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a natural body; whereunto every several congregation and y ^e whole church also is like. If you seek the head of every several congregation, you must look to the chief governors thereof, but if you seek the head of the whole Church, the scripture teacheth but one, which is Christ, for one head under another, in one whole body is monstrous. But you think perhaps, Christ as he is head of his Church, may say to the feet, he hath no need of them, and therefore it must be understood of an head under Christ, but then you must remember, that although Christ be most perfect in him self, yet as he vouchsafeth to take upon him this office to be head of y ^e Church, he is not perfect without all his members, which is the singular comfort of God's children, Ephe. 1. ver. last. But Saint Paul, Ephe. 4. as Bristow saith, under the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter, whose see for that cause is called the Apostolic see in singular manner, and their decrees and acts esteemed of Apostolic authority in all antiquity. This cause is a shameless and senseless lie, for no antiquity, for 600. years after Christ so esteemed y ^e see, or the decrees thereof. Again., what reason is it, y ^t Peters successors should be included, more thē the successors of the other Apostles, seeing this souereigntie of Peter, is not grounded upon his Apostleship, but upon his Bishoplike office, as Sander maintaineth? As for the principality of Apostleship, & principality of the Apostles chair, which he quoteth out of August. de bapt. Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. & epi. 162. have often been shown to be insufficient, to make everyone of Peters successors equal with Peter in authority, or Peter him self superior to the rest of the Apostles. And consequently there is no cause to think, that calamity of the Greeks to be fallen upon them for departing from that see.

In the 29. Demaund of Traditions, where I charge Papists out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians, which accused the scriptures of imperfection, saying,

Bristow answereth, that S. Irenee him self, as all Catholics, will have both scripture and tradition. Yea sir, but what tradition? any truth of doctrine, conserved by tradition, which is not contained in the holy scriptures? nothing less. But appealeth to the testimony of the Churches tradition, for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures. So that what so ever the Apostles delivered, is contained in their writings, and it is still an heretical assertion to say, that all true doctrine is not delivered by writing, but some by word of mouth.

In the 34. Demaund of Authority, where I affirm, the order of the Apostles school, is first to hear the word of God preached, and then to believe, Rom. 10. reproving Allen which commended his friend, that he first believed, and afterward sought to understand: Bristow objecteth the authority of Augustine, lib Retr. 1. cap. 14. where he showeth the cause, why he did write his book de vtilitate credendi to have ben, for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholic faith, that men were commanded to believe not taught, by most certain reason, what was true, whose slander Augustine confuteth in that book, and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order. As for examples of believing Christ and his Apostles, without requiring a reason of their doctrine; howe vain it is, I leave to children to laugh at, seeing I speak not of reason, but of the word of God preached, which must needs go before faith: Neither doth Augustine mean any otherwise in his book de vtil. creed. cap. 13.

But howe should faith be persuaded, but by the preaching of the word of God, without curious inquisition, according to the reason of man?

Where I say, that Protestants will be ruled by their superiors, so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God: Bristow derideth their authority, who by our own confession may swerve from the truth of God's word: as though the Popish superiors might not, or their supreme head, although beside so many blasphemous errors, as he holdeth, whereof y ^e controversy is with y ^e Papists, it have not been oft proved, y ^t diverse Popes have been condemned, even by general Councils for heretics. Where I said the Greek Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople, and the orientall Churches by their Patriarchs and Bishops. Bristow saith, if I knew the story of the Florentine Council, wherein the Patriarchs agreed with the Catholics Church in all things, and yet could not reduce their countries from schism, I would not so say. But I knew that story before Bristow knew whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper, found in the hand of Joseph the Patriarke, who died soudenly: but in no act of that Council any such submission or agreement in all things, appeareth, but the contrary.

Where I said, that to believe the Catholic Church, is not to believe all and everything which the Catholic Church doth maintain: Bristow would have me suppose, the Apostles had said, Credo. S. Romanam ecclesiam, and then asketh, howe I would have construed it. Verily even as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam. And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas &c. But if the Apostles would have taught us, to give credit to the Church of Rome in all things, they would have taught us to say, Credo Romanae ecclesiae. And Credo scriptures Canonicis, duodecim Apostolis, quatuor Euangelistis, &c. I give credit to the holy scriptures, to the twelve Apostles, and to the four Evangelists. For Credo with an Accusatiue case, to signify I give credit, howe so ever you deride my grammatication, will not be admitted in the kingdom of Grammarians, except his holiness will do as much for that term, as he is reported to have done once for fiatur.

In the 35. Demand of Unity, where I said, the Church may be called the house of peace, because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith: Bristow saith, by this reason, many old heresies were with in the house of peace, because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest, may break peace, as that of quartadecimani, who disagreed only in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion, might be in the house of peace, as Irenaeus testifieth, if obstinate contempt of general order did not make a schism, and of a schism an heresy, as in the Donatists. Otherwise difference in a ceremony (as I said) maketh not division of faith: Bristow saith, yes, if they hold their ceremony necessary. But then they hold it not as a ceremony, or the Churches ceremony unlawful. But that maketh not division. Polycarpus thought his ceremony to be the right ceremony, against Anicetus, yet he was not divided from him, for he considered the error in a ceremony not to be of such importance, that it ought to break the unity of the Church. And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus, nor Anicetus with him. No more do they among us, that differ in opinion of ceremonies, except some few schismatical heads, that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubborness.

The difference of opinions between the Popish Divines and Canonistes, Bristow saith are such, as may be among Christians, as Augustine testifieth, Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt. Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. until a general Council allow some part for clear and pure, but we will not allow the authority of any general Council, if Bristow may be believed: If we might have a Christiā general Council for such matters, as are in controversy among us, I doubt not but we should agree, better then the Papists which boast so much of unity. As for the contention of the Popes and Councils superiority, remaineth still among you, notwithstanding the Florentine Council, which you say most impudently, that I confess to have resolved the matter, when another Council, and another Pope at the same time, determined against it.

In the 36. Demand of Owners or Keepers of the scriptures, where I say the primitive Church, which commendeth the scripture unto us, doth not condemn Luther or his doctrine for heresy: Bristow saith, it doth in Arius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, &c. as though there were no primitive Church before these men, which commended the scripture unto us, and yet knew neither prayer for for the dead, nor superstition of relics, or anything that Luther held with those men.

Where I tax the blindness of the Popish Church, not discerning the scriptures Canonical, from Apocryphal: Bristow bringeth in a saying of Augustine, showing that it is of necessity, for him to believe the Acts of the Apostles, if he believe the Gospel: because the Catholic authority commendeth both the scriptures alike unto him. But I have shown, that the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Iudeth, &c. are not commended to us by the Catholic or universal authority of the Church. After other contentious pointes stoutly affirmed or denied, without proof, he cometh to charge me with a substantial lie, because I say our Church which is the only true Catholic Church, hath always had right and possion of the word of God, as appeareth by this, that our Church believeth nothing but that she learneth in them. If this be not a notable plea, Bristow reporteth him to our Lawiers. But I report me to all Logicians, whether it be not a good argument, by proving us to be the true Church, to claim continual right and possession of the scriptures, as for y ^e novelty of Luther, & our cōgregatiō, is a weak plea to dispossess us of y ^e Church, when y ^• antiquity of our faith and religion, proveth us to be of the oldest Church, and therefore the only true Church.

Where Allen made his offer, that if I could show any Church, that hath safely kept the scriptures, saving the Popish Church, he would recant: I show him the Greek and Eastern Churches, which are not Popish, whereupon he is bound by his offer to recant: yet Bristow without all shame saith: Every article of D. Allens is not to prove absolutely, that we be the Church; but some only that you be not the Church. True it is, that neither everyone nor any of them all, are sufficient to prove, that you are the Church and not we. But that Allen meant they were sufficient, it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant, if any of them can be proved to agree to any other, than to the Popish Church.

In the eight and thirty Demand of old Heresies, where I shown that many of the Popish ceremonies, were first instituted by heretics, answering directly to Allens challenge, that offered to recant if any man could prove, that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies: Bristow saith they are such matters, as agree none otherwise to them then to those whom I dare not condemn &c. Which if it were so, yet doth it not show but that I have answered Allens challenge, and therefore do, according to his promise, claim his recantation.

Of the Messalians or Martyrians I said, they learned first to shave their beardes, and let their locks grow long: Bristow out of Epiphanius saith, they did let their hair grow long like women The Popish Priests do not so, but round them. Yet can he not prove out of Epiphanius, that the Messalians did not keep their hair in order by rounding or otherwise. Further he saith, some Protestants do so. I answer, none of ceremony doth so. Thirdly, Priests in Italy and Spain do poll their heads and keep their beardes. I answer, they keep the text of the decree, and you the gloss, which saith, statuimus, id est abrogamus &c. We decree, that is we abrogate that Clerks neither wear long hair, nor shave their beardes. Last of all he saith, I have no great matters to charge them with, when I lay their hairs to their charge. My reply is, that my charge goeth no further then Allens challenge, which urgeth me to show any other to have first instituted any one ceremony in Popery, but the Popes only Catholic Church. And so I say to the superstitious masking garments, instituted by the Pharisees, although the ancient Church about four or five hundredth years after Christ, received such robes in use.

Also the daily use of Popish holy water, to put men in mind of baptism, had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptized or washed every day. Here Bristow with a very stale jest, acknowledgeth their fault, and layeth it upon Saint Paul, who hath deceived them, Rom. 6. where baptism is in deed remembered, but holy water I trow is not there. O, then it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paul was to blame (saith Bristow) to tell us, that the creatures of God are sanctified by the word of God and by prayer. Wonderful Divinity, that can bring Popish holy water to so holy a beginning! No marvel if we be blind, which think the Apostle speaketh there of the lawful use of meats (forbidden by the Pope) and of all other of God's creatures being sanctified by the word of God, which give us the use so by prayer, that we may use them well. But specially saith Bristow, he was to blame for saying. The holy Ghost doth help our weakness, praying for us with groans unspeakable, how so ever blind heretics think he will do nothing by water for prayer. In deed when the scriptures be so plain for holy water, it is wonder that any be so blind they can see it.

Of the Ossenes I said, they took their hallowing of water, salt, oil, bread, &c. and use to swear by them. Bristow asketh if I be an Anabaptist, that will condemn all swearing or swearing by creatures. I answer, I will not condemn all swearing, but this customable swearing of Papists, by this bread, by this salt, &c. and as for swearing by creatures, I am of the same judgment that our Savior Christ is, Matth. 5. 34. But Papists swear not by them as the Ossenes did, what then? the controversy is not therein, but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part.

Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholars a prayer in a strange tongue, whose interpretation they might not seek, whom the Papists follow in teaching the people to pray in a tongue unknown, and will not, (if they may chose) let them know the interpretation. Bristow answereth, that Epiphanius saith, his prayer was nothing at all when it was interpreted. Is it like Epiphanius would say so? Howe could it be interpreted, if it had no signification? Epiphanius in deed showeth it was a vain thing, whereof he made so great a mystery, and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the Lord's prayer, the Salutation and the creed, make vain and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their words together truly.

The Marcosians in baptism used for greater admiration certain Hebrew words; so do the papists: Bristow asketh, why S. Mark in his Greek writing, useth y ^t word Eppheta? I answer, more lively to express the miracle of Christ: yet doth he it not without interpretation. Likewise Saint John, in his Apocalypse useth Amen and Alleluia, words, whose signification was as commonly known to all Christians, as their own mother language. What is this to justify the use of that word in baptism, which neither Mark nor John speak of? But it was used in the time of Ambrose. So were other needless matters, yet was it used to them that understood the whole office or service of baptism in latin. Augustine saith it was not lawful for any Barbarian, or Latin man to translate the words, Amen & Alleluia, which all nations do singe in the Psalms, into his own language. For thus he coteth De doct. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 11. & inter Epist. 174. but in neither of thē do I find any such matter. Certain it is that Augustine doth give the signification of them both in latin. Of the Marcionistes (I said) they learned to give womē leave to baptize: Bristow saith, we do our selves therein by order of our book as much as they do, but he is deceived: there is no permissiō in the book for women to baptize. Touching the necessity of baptism, we have spoken before cap. 6. Finallie I said the Papists are Pelagians for holding free will, and merits of works, as they did, & not predessination and grace as S. Augustine did, Bristow citeth Jerome. Cont. Pela saying, y ^t it was the heresy of the Manichees, to take away free will. So it was in deed to affirm that the will of man was enforced or constrained. But that the will of man, is free from the thralldom of sin, and hath power to merit, without grace, or with grace more easily, it was the heresy of the Pelagians as Augustine in whole books written against thē doth declare: But August. Epist. 46. saith, That by the grace of God a wicked man may be made a just one, and so may begin to have good merits, which God shall crown whē the world shall be judged. I answer by merits he meaneth works and not deserts: for else how saith he elsewhere (in Ps. 101. & diverse places beside) that God crowneth his gifts and not our merits, where he useth the name of merits, for deserts? where I said the papists color Pelagianism with their distinctiō, De congruo & condigno: Bristow saith we do like hypocrites conceal before the people, the distinction of merits before grace, and after grace, for they hold that a man cannot merit the grace of God De congruo without God's help, although they have no resolute warrant to call the contrary Pelagianism or heresy. And why have you no warrant? for rear you should condemn diverse of your chief pillars the scholemē for heretics, which hold contrary to that you hold, and yet you all hold that a man may dispose him self unto a certain aptness to receive the grace of God by the power of his free will. Where I said God is as much bound to congruity as to condignity: Bristow saith I immagine that if God do not that which is cōgruous, he doth against cōgruitie. Now good sir saith he, It is cōgrue to his mercy, to save the simple that are out of the Church, which is not cōgruus to his justice But good sir, I pray you dispute not so of congruine, y