Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue

p. 252.

psal. 84. v. 7. p. 511.

psal. 85. v. 13. p. 218. num. 13. and p. 59. num. 46.

psal. 89. v. 48. p. 219. num. 14.

psal. 95. v. 6. p. 478.

psal. 98. v. 5. ibidem.

psal. 131. v. 7. ibid.

psal. 138. v. 17. p. 460.

psal. 147. v. 19. p. 252. and • . 18. p. 516. num. 3.

Proverbs.
• Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 22 • . numb. 22.
• chap. 9. v. 2. p. 456. nu. 21. cum sequent.
• chap. 27. v. 20. p. 228
• chap. 30. v. 16. ibid.

Cantica canticorum.
• Chap. 6. v. 8. p. 155. num. 10
• chap. 8. v. 6▪ p. 29. num. 46. see p. 508. numb. 2

Of Wisdom.
• Chap. 3. v. 14. p. 346. num. 3
• chap. 15. v. 13. p. 127. num. 27

Ecclesiasticus.
• Chap. 5. v. 5. p. 348. numb. 4
• chap. 7. v. 31. p. 390

Isaiah.
• Chap. 2. p. 513. numb. 7
• chap. 26. v. 18. p. 508
• chap. 30. v. 22. p. 121. num. 23 and v. 20. p. 511. num. 5
• chap. 33. p. 513. num. 6

Hieremie.
• Chap. 7. v. 18. p. 467. num. 9
• chap. 11. v. 19. p. 453. num. 18
• chap. 44. v. 19. p. 467. num 9

Daniel.
• Chap. 4. v. 24. p. 375. numb. 18
• chap. 6. v. 22. p. 256. num. 3
• chap. 10. v. 12. p. 372. num. 15
• chap. 14. v. 4. p. 126. num. 26 and v. 12. 17. 20. p • . 451. num. 16

Osee.
• Chap. 12. v. 10. p. 514. num. 8
• chap. 13. v. 14. p. 159 num. 46 and p. 221. num. 16

Joel.
• Chap. 2. v. 23. p. 511

Habacuc.
• Chap. 2. v. 18. p. 122. num. 23 see p. 510. num. 4

Malachi.
• Chap. 2, v. 7. p. 412. num. 17
• chap. 3. v. 1. p. 414. num. 18 and v. 14. p. 374. num. 17

1. Maccabees.
• Chap. 1. v. 51. p. 252.
• chap. 2. v 21. ibid.

2. Maccabees.
• Chap. 6. v. 7. p. 501. num. 5

S. Matthew.
• Chap. 1. v. 19. p. 257. num. 4 and v. 25. p. 470
• chap. 2. v. 6. p▪ 417
• chap. 3. v. 8. p. 355.
• chap. 16. v. 18. p. 140. numb. 2 and p. 144. num. 5
• chap. 18. v. 17. p. 140
• chap▪ 19. v. 11 12. p. 314. nu. 8 and p. 411. num. 16
• chap. 26. p. 429.

S. Mark.
• Chap. 10. v. 52. p. 352. num. 9
• chap. 14. p. 429

S. Luke.
• Ch • p. 1. v. 28. p. 56. numb. 43. and p. 463. num. 4 and v. 6. p. 252. p. 257. nu. 4
• chap. 3. v. 8. p. 355
• chap. 1. v. 48. 50. p. 353. nu. 9
• chap. 18. v. 42. p. 353. numb. 9
• chap. 22. v. 20 p. 444. num. 10 and p. 445 num. 11

S. John.
• Chap. 1. v. 12. p. 300
• chap. 9. v. 22. 23. p. 503. num. 9
• chap. 13. v. 16. p. 392. num. 3

Acts.
• Chap. 1. v. 26. p. 396. num. 5
• chap. 2. v. 27. p. 200. nu. 3▪ 4. 5
• chap. 3. v. 21. p. 439. num. 7
• chap. 4. v. 13. p. 392. num. 3
• chap. 9. v. 22. p. 4 • 4. num. 2
• chap. 14. v. 22. p. 162. num. 5 and v. 23. p. 398. num. 7▪
• chap. 15. v. 2. 4. 6. 22. 23. p. 161 num▪ 4▪
• chap. 16. v. 4. ibid.
• chap. 17. v. 23. p. 503. num. 8
• chap. 19. v. 24. p. 502. num. 7 and v. 3. p. 382. num. 3
• chap. 20. ibid. and v. 28. p. 417. nu. 21. and v. 17. p. 166. n. 8

Romans.
• Chap. 2. v. 26. p. 252
• chap. 5. v. 6. pag. 323. numb. 13 and v. 18. p. 328
• chap. 8. v. 18. p. 263 and v. 38. p▪ 346▪ num. 3
• chap. 9. v. 16. p. • 12. nu. 7
• chap. 11. v. 4. p. 116 num. 19

1. Corinthians.
• Chap. 1. v. 10. p. 135. num▪ 3
• chap. • ▪ v. 11. p. 12. num. 6
• chap. 9. v. 5. p. 450▪
• chap. 10. v. 21. p. 451. num. 16.
• chap. 11. v. 2. p. 89. num. 23
• chap. 15. v. 5. p. 426. num. 4 and v. 10. p. 301. num. 2 and v. 55. p. 221. num. 16

2. Corinthians.
• Chap. 2. v. 10▪ p. 417. num. 20
• chap. 4. v. 17. p. 273 num. 7
• chap. 5. p. 336. num. 6
• chap. 6. v. 16. p. 90▪ num. 3 and v. 1. p. 309▪ num. 6
• chap. 8. p▪ 392. num. 3

Galatians.
• Chap. 5. v. 20. p. 135. num. 3

Ephesians.
• Chap. 1. v. 6. p. 338. num. 7 and v. 22. p. 140. num. 2. and v. 22. 23. p. 163. num. 6
• chap. 3. v. 12. p. 303. p. 349. n. 5
• chap. 5. p. 424. num. 2 and v. 5. p. 6. num. 5. pa. 88 num. 1 and v. 32. p▪ 133. num. 2 and v. 25. 32. p. 140. num. 2

Philippians.
• Chap. 2. v. 15. p. 395. num. 4
• chap. 4. v. 5. p. 407. num. 13

Colossians.
• Chap. 1. v. 23. p▪ 491. num. 8 and v. 12 p. 284. num. 17
• chap▪ 2. v. 20. p. 13. num. 8
• chap. 3. v. 5. p. 6. num. 5
• pa. 87. num. 9. p. 103. numb. 12

2. Thessalonians.
• Chap. 1. v. 4. p. 258. num. 5 and v. 11. p. 282. nu. 15
• chap. 2. v. 15. p. 76. num. 2
• chap. 3. v. 6. ibid.

1. Timothy.
• Chap. 3. v. 6. p. 392. num. 3 and v. 8. p. 390. and v. 15. p. 140. num. 2
• chap. 4. v. 14▪ p. 166. num. 8. p. 399. num. 8
• chap. 5. v. 17. 18. p. 166. numb. 8. p. 198

2. Timothy.
• Chap. 1. v. 6. p. 402. num. 10
• chap. 4. v. 8. p. 258. num. 5

Titus.
• Chap. 3. v. 8. p. 378. and v. 10. p. 17. num. 13. p. 135. num. 3

Hebrews.
• Chap. 2. v. 9. p. 270. numb. 6
• chap. 5. v. 7. p. 58. num. 45. pa. 243. num. 37.
• chap. 6. v. 10. p. 258. num. 5
• chap. 10. v. 29. p. 280. num. 13. and v. 22. p. 328. num. 2. and v. 20. p. 242. num. 36
• chap. 11. v. 21. p. 474.
• chap. 12. v. 23. p. 140. num. 2
• chap. 13. p. 408. num. 14. and v. 5 p. 56. num. 44

S. James.
• Chap. 1. v. 13. p. 495. num. 2
• chap. 4. v. 6. p. 488. num. 6

1. Peter.
• Chap. 1. v. 18. p. 83. num. 6. & v. 25. p. 485. num. 3
• chap. 2. v. 3. p. 419. num. 22. p. 421. num. 24
• chap. 5. v. 1. p. 168. num. 9

2. Peter.
• Chap. 3. v. 16. p. 493

1. John.
• Chap. 5. v. 3. p. 325. num. 14 and v. 21. p. 105. num. 13

Apocalypse.
• Chap. 19. v. 8. p. 256. num. 3

BEZAES CORruptions.
• Psalms.
  • Psal. 51. v. 6. p. 27. num. 26
• S. Matthew.
  • Chap. 23. p. 504. num. 10
• Acts.
  • Chap. 1. v. 14. p. 405. num. 12
  • chap. 2. v. 23. p. 33. num. 31. pa. • 97. num. 3. and v. 24. p. 33 num. 32. 34. and v. 27. p. 33 num. 31. p. 198. num. 2.
  • chap. 3. v. 21. p. 35. num. 36
  • chap. 13. v. 39. p. 330. num. 2
  • chap. 26. v. 20. p. 58. num. 45 pa. 355. num. 1
• Romans.
  • Chap. 4. v. 11. p. 380. num. 2
• 1. Corinthians.
  • Chap. 12. v. 31. p. 352. numb. •
  • chap. 13. v. 2. p. 350. num. 6
  • chap. 15. v. 10. num. 27
• 2. Thessalonians.
  • Chap. 2. v 3. p. 78. num. 3
• Titus.
  • Cha. 3. v. 5. p. 385. and v. 6. pa. 46. num. 46
• Hebrews.
  • Chap. 5. p. 32. num. 29

A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF SVNDRY CAVILS AND QVARELS, uttered by diverse Papists in their several books & pamphlets against the writings of William Fulke.

I Were very much to blame, if I would not confess with S. Augustine, that as in my manners, so in my writings many things may be justly reprehended, at which I ought not to be offended, no not although I were reproved by mine adversaries. But when the enemies of God's holy religion, & of the quiet state of this realm, seek by wounding of me, to hurt the truth, and if it were possible through my sides, to wound her to death: I ought not to be silent in this case, but by showing mine honest defense, as it were by holding up my buckler, to bear off their blows as well as I can, to maintain the credit of that cause which I have taken in hand: lest whilst I forbear to defend myself, the truth might seem to have takē a foil. And yet I mean not so to confound my case with the state of truth, that wheresoever I may be justly convinced, truth should be thought to have lost the victory. For I am but one poor soldier among many thousand captains, that fight under the banner of truth, which if I have not in every respect performed all duties of an expert warrior, it is reason the reproach of my defaultes should rest and stay only in mine own ignorance or rashness which have not so happily executed that which of good will to fight in truths cause I have attempted within these five or six years. I have set abroad sundry treatises in confutation of popish books written in English, which purpose if God give me strength, to answer as many as within twenty years of her majesties reign, had been set forth by the Papists, and are not yet confuted by any other. This purpose of mine, the Papists have not greatly hindered by replies, for (except one only Bristow, who observing no good order of replying, but gathering here and there at his pleasure, whatsoever he thought himself best able to reprove, hath made a show of defense of Allens Articles and Purgatory) none other have as yet set forth any just replication to the rest of my writings. And as for Bristow, he hath my reioynder unto his reply these two years in his hand to consider upon, the other that of late have set forth Popish treatises, have endeavored themselves almost everyone of them, to have a snatch or two at someone od thing or other in my books, wherein they would seem to have advantage, & that belike they would have their simple readers think, to be a sufficient confuration of all that ever I have written against them. I have thought good therefore as near as I can, to gather all their cavils together, and briefly to shape an answer to everyone of them, that the indifferent reader may see & judge what sound matter they have brought against me where with in show of words, they would have it seem, as though they had confuted me.

First Master Allen in his late Apology. fol. 63. accusing the Protestants to feign an appellatiō unto the judgment of the most ancient fathers of the primitive Church, and yet not to abide by it, not esteeming them better than the present government of the Popish Church, but as of men deceived, as of human traditions, &c.

How unjustly Beza is slandered to be a witness of this accusation, they that understand y ^• Latin tongue, may see in the places quoted. But touching myself, the book which he quoteth having scarce half so many pages, I might entreat him for a new quotation, but that I guess he meaneth a place in my confutation of Sanders book which he calleth the Rock of the church, which was printed with the Retentiue, and continueth the number of pages from it. In that book pag. 248. there is nothing that soundeth toward such a matter, except it be these words: Then let us see, if it may be employed. The mystery of iniquity did work in the see of Rome from the Apostles time, taking increase by little & little, until six hundred years and more after Christ, when Antichrist began to be openly shown: and many of the ancient fathers not espying the subtlety of Satan's secret purpose, were deceived to think something more of Peters prerogative, & of the bishops of Rome's dignity, than by the word of God was granted to either of them: this is in effect as much as I affirm, but here of it followeth not, that I make them the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist. For those are the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist, which willingly lend all their power to maintain, and uphold his kingdom, after he hath invaded the tyranny: The ancient fathers meant nothing less by admitting of the bishops of Rome's prerogative, under color of Peters successor, than to serve him or advance him into the throne of Antichrist. Not everyone whom Satan hath seduced that he might prepare a way for the advancement of his tyranny, is a minister and furtherer of Satan or his tyranny, for then should all men be counted ministers or furtherers of Satan, seeing the kingdom of sin is increased by the frailty of all men, which by temptation of the devil fall into sin. Beside that, many of the ancient fathers, openly resisted the usurped power of the bishops of Rome, when it began only to bud up, and was yet far off from Antichristian tyranny, although it tended somewhat toward the same. So did the bishops of the East churches countermaund Victor bishop of Rome, contending about the celebration of Easter. So did Irenaeus, Polycrates, and many other godly fathers, in public writings openly reprehend him. So did Cyprian in diverse Epistles expostulate with the bishops of Rome, for meddling with causes that pertained to his jurisdiction. So did all the bishops of Africa make decrees against the usurped authority and titles of the bishops of Rome, denying all appeals unto the sea of Rome, & excommunicating all them that would appeal to any place beyond the sea, discovering also the forged Canon of the Nicene Council, by which the bishops of Rome challenged that prerogative. So that M. Allen by this his slander, hath done injury to me, and hurt to himself, while men by this example may judge of his sincerity in other matters.

Next cometh in the discovery of I. Nicols, denying that they make the Catholic religion local, or of one province, as he chargeth me (with some scornful terms of reproach) to affirm in my bad answer to Howlet. I said in deed, that S. Augustine De vnit. Eccles. Cap. 4. doth clear us of schism, who willingly communicate with all the whole body of Christ's Church, dispersed over the world, and charge the Popish faction both of schism & heresy: of schism, because they maintain the Church to be only in a part of Europe, as the Donatists did in Africa, &c. And what injury have I done to the Papists in so saying? The Donatists said, the Church was perished out of all the world, & remained only in Africa: not assigning any place of Africa, whereunto the Church must be regardant, as the Papists do the city of Rome: but affirming that true Catholics remained only in Africa, being consumed out of all other partes of the earth. And what say the Papists of all the Oriental churches of Greece, of Asia, of Aphrike, that acknowledge not the Popes authority? Do they not accompt them all for heretics or schismatics? Then it followeth, that they acknowledge the Church to remain only in those partes of Europe, that are subject to the Pope, and Church of Rome. But perhaps they will allege their newly founded Churches in India and America, which vain brag I will not stand to confute: but seeing this enlargement is but new begun, in our graundfathers days, before those partes of the earth were discovered by nauigation of the Portingals and Spaniards, where was the Romish church & pope thereof acknowledged but only in a piece of Europe. If yet they will allege the submission of any Patriarchs or Prelates of the Ethiopian or Armenian churches made to the Pope by some wandering pilgrims, which are of no credit among wisemen, yet all men may know, that those Christians continuing to this day, in the same religion, rites and ceremonies, that they did before such pretended submissions, holding and doing many things contrary to the Romish religion and custom, which argueth plainly, that they neither were, nor mean to become members of the church of Rome, and subjects to Popish religion, which they refuse to receive in as many points, as ever they did. Wherefore the Popish church remaineth still shut up within the streites of Europe, for any accession of them. And what enlargement so ever it hath in the new world, it is rather by colonies of Portingals & Spaniards, than by conversion of those barbarous nations. For as for them that were for fear of death compelled to receive baptism, as many of the barbarous people have been, no true Catholic can acknowledge for good and Catholic Christians, who as occasion always served them, spared not to give sufficient testimony of their counterfeit conversion, whereby it appeared, that the sacrament of baptism was in them profaned, rather than that they by it were sanctified. As for my bad answer to Howlet, as it seemeth was so sufficient, that never a Papist these two years can find time to confute it. Although if they thought it too bad to confute, there hath been since a better set forth with more advise, by master Wyborne, but the reply we shall have at greater leisure, the Howlet as I guess being otherwise occupied in defense of his Censure, for that his proud stomach had rather play the Judge than the defendant.

The next quarrel followeth in the third lease after, where he approveth I. Nicols affirming, as he saith, that Purgatory, prayer for the dead, and invocation of Saints, are late inventions of Popes & Papists.

he had not added upward, I must have abated one hundred years at least of his account. But now let us see, what I have confessed of these doctors and upward. First against Purgatory, page 306. But whosoever shall vouchsafe to turn the book to that page, shall find never a word of my writing, good or bad, but only the first section of the ninth Chapter of Allens second book. Well, this may be the printers fault, peradventure it is page 106. because it is not like that 306. should come before 115. the next quotation that followeth, but neither is there anything to this purpose. Then let us see what may be found page 115. even as much as in page 306. for there is never a word of my writing in that page, but all is Allens. 8. chapter of the first book. Then come we to the third quotation page 316. and there in deed is something sounding toward this matter, touching prayer for the dead, which Augustine did allow, but of purgatory there is nothing. Of invocation of Saints there is mention, but no affirmation that Augustine did believe it, for in the next page followeth a discourse to prove that S. Augustine, as he declareth in his book De cura pro mortuis &c. was not certain how the Saints departed should know anything that is done in this world, although he inclined to that opinion, that they might have knowledge by relation of dead men, or of Angels, or else he knoweth not howe, and so doth plainly confess. From hence we must pass to page 320. where in deed, I do confess that Ambrose alloweth prayer for the dead, as it was a common error of his time, but not sacrifice of the mass in that sense that Papists do. Last of all. Ar • . page 39. I deny, that for 200. years after Christ, it can be proved, that any Catholic writer doth allow prayer for the dead, or invocation of Saints, and that the later error was not confirmed 400. years after Christ, namely in Saint Augustine's time, in that small help was acknowledged by Chrysostom, to come to the dead by prayers made for them. In all those places S. Jerome is not once named, nor purgatory confessed to be received, whereof S. Augustine the last of the three sometime doubteth, sometime utterly denieth any third place: neither did I ever confess, that any of those three errors were holden by these ancient fathers in all respects, as they are by the Papists, nor that purgatory was ever believed of any of them, only Augustine sometimes speaketh of it, as of a doubtful matter, which he saith may be inquired, whether there be any such place or no: and yet confuted those interpretations of the scriptures which the Papists make their chiefest grounds of it. By this you may see, how liberal this Jesuit is in extending my confession further than ever it was made or meant by me, or can be proved by him or any Papist of them all.

The third leaf again, after this, he saith that Nicols by citing a place of Augustine, would have men think that S. Augustine disallowed prayer to Saints, which is contrary to Fulkes opinion, who confesseth Augustine to have defended this superstition, as he termeth it, and rayleth on him for it. For this is quoted Purg. pag. 315. 316. 317. Howe he gathereth, what Nicols would have men think, let other men judge. And what mine opinion is of Augustine's allowing of prayer to Saints, I have before expressed out of the places quoted: but where he saith, I rail on him for it, that is but a fryers report, which seldom differeth from a lie. For this is all I say of him for it. By such places as I have in those pages cited out of Augustine, it is proved,

Whether in these words I have railed, I submit myself to the judgment of the reader, that will weigh what I have cited out of S. Augustine, in the pages mentioned.

In the same leaf, and the next page, the margent is painted with quotations out of my book against Purgatory. But what think you to prove? Forsooth, that his adversaries do confess all the old fathers to be on their side, and to have erred with them,

as though we confess all the doctors to be on their side, in every controversy, which we do not acknowledge to be true in any one, although many of the later sort do in some part favor one or two errors of theirs among an hundredth. But let us examine his proves, which seem to be very plentiful, yet of nine quotations I must needs strike out two, page 306. and 279. because in them is not one syllable of my writing, but all of Allens. In the pages 315. & 316. is nothing more contained touching this matter, than I have already declared. There remaineth now, page 349. where I say touching a rule of S. Augustine, which he giveth to try faith and doctrine of the Church only by the scripture, that if he had as diligently followed it, What most reprochefull or contemptuous words are here against S. Augustine? Seeing the holy scripture is a light shining in a dark place, as S. Peter saith, who so goeth without it must walk blindly, which I say in commendation of the light of the scripture, not in contempt of Augustine's reason, whom as I may not honor, with contempt of the truth: so when he is a patron & maintainer of the truth, I honor him from my heart. Likewise page 78. Saint Ambrose is named, but nothing acknowledged to favor any popish error. Augustine is again noted speaking of the amending fire, whereof he hath no ground, but in the common error of his time, and whereof he affirmeth sometimes, that it is a matter that may be doubted of, sometimes that there is no third place at all. Wherefore this place hath neither reproachful words, nor confession of any constant opinion of Augustine, inclining to your errors. Here also I appeal to the judgment of indifferent readers, what confession I have made of the fathers to be on their side, or what reprochefull or contemptuous words I have used against them, for dissenting from us. The next place is quoted, page 247. where I say against Allen, boasting of ancient testimonies, for prayer for the dead: Here except he will cavil, that I acknowledge much dross and dregs to be in the later sort of doctors, I know not what he findeth that hath any shadow of his slander. But the truth must be confessed, that the pure waters of life are to be found only in the word of God, and beside that the best and purest liquors that are to be seen, are not clear from all dregs and dross of human error and frailty. In the next page Origen delivered from the shameful mangling of Allens allegation, is shown plainly to be an enemy of purgatory & prayer for the dead, in that he affirmeth the day of a Christian man's death to be the ende of all sorrow, and the beginning of all felicity. There remaineth now the last place quoted, page 194. where I acknowledge, that Gregory, Bernard, & Bede, upon the text Matth. 12. are of opinion that sins not remitted in this world, may be remitted in the world to come. But how happeneth it (say I) that Chrysostom & Ieronyme which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead. Here is all the confessions, most reprochefull & contemptuous words, that are contained in so many of those places as he hath quoted, in which I will not tarry to rehearse how many untruths he hath uttered against me, but wish the indifferent reader to consider, that if he be so bold to slander me concerning a book printed in English, by which he may be convinced of every simple reader, what dare he not avouch of matters done and past at Rome, whither none may travel to try out his tretcherie, but he is in manifest danger never to return the answer of his message?

From this Popish Parson whatsoever his name be, I must pass to another gentleman nameless in deed, but not blameless, yea much more blame worthy than the other: who among so many and so great flanders, as it is wonder howe they could be conveyed into so small a book, against our prince, her laws, her councellors, her judges, her officers, the nobility, the comminaltie, the church, the governors, the pastors, & the people thereof, against all states & persons of the land, in whom there is religion towards God, joined with duty toward their prince and country, hath found yet some empty corners where he might place me in particular. And first of all, page 46. of his Latin Epistle, after he hath described the manner of quartering used in the execution of traitors, and most impudently flandered the officers of Justice, to make such haste in cutting down the Papists, which are hanged, as they use not in punishment of other traitors, to the ende they might satisfy their cruel minds in their torments, which is proved false by many thousand eye witnesses, that have not lightly seen any of them revive with any sense of their pains, except one Story, who also did hang so long before he was cut down, that it was great wondering to many to see him so soon recovered, not only in life, but also in strength. At length he cometh in his tragical manner, to inveigh against the cruelty of their adversaries, whom this cruel sight doth nothing at all move to pity, but they laugh and make sport at it,

This froth of words I might easily match with like rhetorical exclamations. O impudent liar, O shameless slanderer▪ O traiterous backbyter, &c. But I had rather beat it down with truth of matter. Bristow in his book of Motiues, maketh Martyrs his 15. Motiue. Among whom he commendeth as well for the goodness of their cause, as also for their patient suffering: whom approved by miracles undoubted he opposeth against Foxes martyrs as he calleth them. Against this traitorous commendation of open rebels and traitors, among other things thus I have written, Retent. page 59. What cause had this slanderous spirit upon these my words, to make such hydeous outcries, what thief? what ruffian? what murderer? or what matter is ministered in this my saying, to accuse all the adversaries of Papists in England, of such barbarous cruelty? We are not so void of humanity, but we lament y ^e misery even of our greatest & most graceless enemies: but yet we are not so void of understanding, to acknowledge impatient suffering to be true martyrdom, no not if the cause were never so good. Not that we think true martyrs to be void of sense and feeling of their torments, or that they may not testify their pains, even with tears and strong crying sometimes, but that there is a great difference between the crying of patient martyrs unto God for strength & comfort, and the brutish roaring of impatient sufferers, expressed only with pain and torment, as was this of Story, who uttered no voice of prayer in all that time of his crying (as I heard of the very executioner himself, beside them that stood by) but only roared and cried as one overcome with the sharpness of the pain, as no martyr is, whom God is faithful to deliver out of temptation: so that although they have never so great sense of their torment, yet are they never overcome thereby. But peradventure this orator for the popish traitors, will take me up, for concluding against Story, that he did not pray, because no voice of prayer was heard to come from him▪ as though I could not consider, that he was immediately before strangled, so that the passage of his voice might be stopped, that albeit that roaring were his prayer, yet it might not be understood by them which heard it. In deed if there had been no other sign of his impatiency, but his crying, I would not have been bold to have judged thereof, and made him an example of impatiency, as I did. But what patient martyr ever strake his tormentor? Who praying for his persecutors, would strive to buffet and beat them. What man submitting himself to the will of God in his suffering, would resist the executioners that he might not suffer? yea, when there was no remedy but he must suffer? except God for his cruelty shown against his patient saints, had not only given him a taste of such torments as he procured to others, but also made him an open spectacle of the impatient & uncomfortable state of them, that suffer, not in a good cause, and with a good conscience. By this it is manifest how honestly this proctor of the persecuted Papists reporteth, that upon a little groaning I gather that he was no true martyr, and further rayleth as his faculty well serveth him.

The like honest dealing and truth is shown in the English translation of this pamphlet, toward the latter ende, where he speaketh of certain imprisoned & pyned with famine at York. There in the margent, Fulke is placed, as though he had been author or executer of some persecution at York, near to which city, he never came by 40. miles. But this will be excused perhaps by the printers fault, because it is not mentioned in the Latin. Howsoever it be, it argueth a lying and a slanderous stomach of the setters forth of this treatise, that would suffer so open and so apparent a slander, to pass uncorrected being in such a place where it could not escape their sight and knowledge.

But the story of the conference at Wisbich, is a worthy matter, wherein not only this rhetoritian, but also the confuter of M. Charke (if they be not both one Parson, as I guess they be) have thought good to exercise their style. The truth whereof is this, as it is easy to be proved in every respect by sufficient testimonies. It pleased the Lord's and other of her majesties council, after those obstinate recusantes were committed to safe keeping in Wisbich castle, to direct their letters to the Bishoppe of Eli (in whose diocese and castle the prisoners were kept) requiring him to provide, that they might have conference, if they would admit any, and be called upon to come to the Church, and hear the preaching there: whereupon the Bishoppe making choice of me, among other whom he purposed to send unto them, desired me by his Chancellor M. Doctor Bridgewater, to repair unto him into the Isle, from whence he sent me with a gentleman of his house, to signify to them that had the charge of those prisoners, the cause of my coming. Whereupon ensewed that speech in the presence of certain honest men specially called and required to be witnesses, besides a number of other of good credit, the sum whereof as it was written at the present time, by three or four that came with me, of which one is a learned preacher, was collected to certify the Bishop as near as could be, what communication had passed between us, without any further purpose of publishing the same. But the copy thereof coming into the hands of a friend of mine at London, and by him communicated to some other of his friends, at last came into a printers hand, who suddenly set it abroad unknowing to my friend and me. Which how well it was liked of me & my friend, some of the best of the company of Stationers can testify, by that, means was made to have the printer punished, and had not Campions proud and vain challenge come even in the nick, I could not have been persuaded by my friends, to have suffered the party to go so clear as he did. This is the whole truth & every part thereof, which if this dainty orator durst show his face in any honest presence in England, may be proved by such sufficient witness and evidence, as no reasonable person could refuse. Notwithstanding let us see, what a rhetorical liar without fear of God, or shame of the world, without knowledge of the matter, or means to have intelligence, can devise to publish in the face of the world, to bolster the obstinacy of those willful recufants, and to deface the honest endeavor of them that seek first to reform them, and if that cannot be, to take away excuse of ignorance from them. There is a certain minister (saith he) great in his own opinion, but in other men's opinion but mean, &c. Mark how boldly even in the beginning he blusheth not to affirm, that which it is impossible for him to know. For albeit I were as great in mine own opinion, as he reporteth me to be, yet howe could he be privy to my concept, who though he know my person, yet is he not acquainted with my manners, that he might make conjecture by them. Neither is it like, he can hear it by report of other men. For I trust they which know me most familiarly, cannot report, that my behavior argueth any such great opinion of myself. But he gathereth it perhaps either by my preaching, or by my writing. What skill I have in anything God knoweth best, and then they with whom I live. And that I make as little show of that I know, as any man in such cases may conveniently, I answer, they that have most cause to understand what I am, will not refuse to testify. That he saith I am mean in other men's opinions, it grieveth me nothing: rather I am afraid least a great number accept me to be better than I deserve. But to omit this matter, by which yet you may gather, what likelihood of truth is in the rest of his assertions, he proceedeth to accuse me that for hope of a little vainglory, by contending with noble men, cum magnatibus (so the honest subject calleth Watson the Bishop, and Fecknam the Abbot so long since by lawful authority deprived of those dignities) I crept secretly into the castle unlooked for. But if my coming were of hope to win glory, why did I not rather come openly, or cause them to be brought into the Church before the whole multitude? Well, admit I was so blind with desire of vainglory that I could not see▪ which way I might best come to it. Why should he say that I crept into the castle, as it were by stealth? Belike because I came without authority, for so he saith afterward, the papists saw that I came to offer them conference by no public authority. If that had been so, howe could this stand which he saith, Sisti iubet omnes ad s •• m conspectum, he commandeth them all to be brought into his presence. Did he command them by his private authority? or were they which had them in custody so simple, that they would obey an unknown person, a mean man, of small or no account, coming without authority or commanding in his own name, or pretending the name of them that had authority without sufficient warrant? or rather was it not well said, that a liar in a large tale is the best confuter of himself? Although in very truth, I gave no commandment for their appearance before me, only the bishops will was declared by the gentleman his servant, unto their keeper. But what should I stand to rip up those vanities? All reasonable conditions of books, time and order for the conference were offered them. To conclude, I am certainly persuaded, that something perhaps the disdain of my person, but more the fear of the weakness of their cause stayed them, that they would not adventure their credit in trial by disputation. For if the contempt of my lightness and rashness (as their proctor saith) had been the only cause of their refusal, why did they not yield to dispute in the university in which are many of more gravity or learning, yea why did they conclude in the ende that all disputation in matters of faith, was unprofitable, alleging examples of the disputation in the convocation house, in the beginning of the Queens majesties reign▪ and the conference at Westminster in presence of almost all the learned and wise of the realm in the beginning of her majesties reign? For the publishing of the report and the certeinty of the contents thereof, I have shown sufficiently, as the truth of the matter was, and as I will be able to justify by good witness, whatsoever this impudent liar hath aduouched to the contrary. The same is also sufficient to confute the same slander repeated by the confuter of Master Charke in Epist. pa. 9. concerning my only looking into Wisbich castle, and printing a pamphlet in mine own praise, where if I had feigned matter for my praise I might as well have feigned, howe valiantly I had vanquished mine enemies. For small praise is gotten where there is no victory, & victory can be none where there is no battle. The like slander he hath, but with more words of reproach pag. 2. of his defense, where beside his ruffianlike railing, which is a greater fault in him that reproveth others, for intemperate speech, there is nothing more in substance, but that I did set forth that pamphlet in mine own commendation, and I attempted the matter without authority, wherein without all rhetorike I must tell him plainly, he lieth impudently. As for the disputation he saith they have sued for in seditious manner, and for a purpose of seditiō by Campion their valiant champion▪ for other suite they cannot prove that ever they made, or by any other means that ever I heard of, howe like it is they would sewe for it we may know by this, that they would not accept it when it was offered, and howe well it was discharged by Campion their lusty chal • nger, when he could not refuse it, there be many both wise and learned witnesses, that can testify, to the reproof of such impudent reports, as have been bruted in popish pamphlets, by ignorant asses: to whom their own champion is so little beholding, that they have for the most part made his answer a great deal more absurd, and further from show of learning, than in deed it was. But if you be so sharp set upon disputation, as you pretend, why doth never a papist of you all answer my challenge made openly in print to all learned papists, almost three year ago, set before my Retentiue against Bristowes Motiues, wherein you may express, what you have in mainteinaunce of your opinion, without suite, without danger, and to the best and surest try all of the truth. But now it is time to come to other cauilles of this syrly censurer. They are of two sorts, the one concerning words, the other touching matter. I will begin first with the words, and as near as I can readily find them, I will quote the places of my books where I have used them. And letting the reader see what cause moved me sometimes to such vehement terms, I refer it to his judgment. whether I have passed the bonds of modesty, or equity, yea or nay. First he chargeth me with a ruffianlike spirit, because I say to Allen: Show me Allen if thou canst for thy guts. pag. 241. In that place I answer to Allen, which scornfully biddeth the Papists say unto us:

that James calleth pure and unspotted, &c. Whiles he requireth a sight of our faith by our good works, I answer that because the trial of singular persons is uncertain, and impossible, let us consider the whole states. Then followeth: Show me if thou canst for thy guts, or name any popish city, that hath made such provision for the fatherless and widows, as the city of London, &c. What speech is hear like a ruffian? Except the delicate censurer, cannot abide to hear Allens guts named, but he thinketh it russianlike: as though he had never heard of these phrases, ruparis licet, non si te ruperis inquit, rumpantur ut ilia Codro. In which, saving the authority of this noble censurer, no wise man did ever conceive any ruffianlike spirit. It savoreth a great deal more of a ruffianlike spirit, that himself abuseth the phrases of the holy Ghost, to scorning and scoffing, as hear in the margent, Doctor Fulkes tallent in railing, and pag. 50. Luther's lying with a nunne in the lord, who but an atheist, would not abhor to speak so? But let us examine what railing he hath noted out of my Retentiue against Bristowes Motiues. First, lewd Losell, and unlearned dogbolt, which I find pag. 6. where I say, that some of the Papists were moderators of the conference at Westminster, at least one: I say let the reader judge, whether he have not deserved those terms, that being but a man of very mean learning, as his writings declare, was not ashamed to call all the nobilities and commons of the parliament, lay lord • and unlearned heretics.

Again, pag. 58. I call Bristow a traitorous Papist, because he slandereth our state not only for public execution of open rebels and errant traitors, as the Earl of Northumberlande, Story, Felton, Nortons, Woodhouse, and so many hundreds of the northeren men, whom all he calleth holy martyrs, proved by miracles undoubted, but also with privy murthering by poisoning, whipping, and famishing, what less I could have said of him for this high treason openly printed, and what an honest Papist the censurer is for reproving me in so terming him, I refer to the judgment of all Christian and faithful subjects.

Deut. 13. &c. Weigh the term with the desert of the person in this bold assertion, and if it be too extreme, I desire no favor.

Here I do not simply accuse his wit, but either his wit or his malice: and that one of them was to blame, if not both, every wise man may see by his argument.

Furthermore, pag. 39. I say, he is an impudent asse, which to stablish his ground of custom, is not ashamed to falsify the words of holy scripture. For he had said, that Saint Paul after many reasons 1. Cor. 11. for the vncomlinesse of women's going bareheaded, recoyleth to this invincible fort: Si quis &c. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom (for women to pray uncovered) nor the church of God. His ignorance and impudence is manifest in this place. If the term asse offend any man, let him consider that nothing but an ignorant person is noted thereby, as also pag. 88. where he is called a blind bayarde and blockheaded asse, because he disdainefully upbraideth all our doctors, and universities of much ignorance, and lack of learning, and Calvin he saith erred about the trinity through ignorance, with such odious comparisons, as in so vain and unlearned a fellow, as Bristow showeth himself to be, is intolerable.

To note his bold ignorance also I said pag. 74.

from the particular Church of Rome, gave like privileges of honor to the Church of Constantinople to those which Rome had, reserving only senioritie to old Rome: beside many other reasons, they alleged to prove, that they acknowledged no such authority of the Church at Rome, as the papists now defend.

Likewise pag. 89. I call him blundering Bristow▪ for charging M. Jewel with ignorance, for affirming Christ to be a priest according to his deity, of which assertion I shall have occasion to speak afterward against the last slander.

And pag. 75. where Bristow saith, that in all innovations both great and small that ever by heretics were attempted, they can show under what pope they chanced, what tumults rising in the world thereon, what doctors withstand it, what councils accursed it, &c. I reply thus:

This I write because Bristow would have Jerome, by often entering into the cryptes or vaultes of the Churches at Rome, to signify, that he went on pilgrimage. Where the collector of the phrases doeth me some wrong, to say I call Bristow leaden, blockish, and doltish Papist▪ where I say those doltish papists which avouch anything, never so leaden or blockish. Only I require the indifferent reader to consider whether I have just cause to charge him with ignorance and impudence: as for the terms, I will not stand, either to justify them, or to revoke them, but refer them to every reasonable man's censure.

Furthermore pag. 48. I say that proud scoff, of parliament religion, (which Bristow useth) bewrayeth the stomach of a vanteparler, and not the spirit of a divine, or good subject. Hear I think the term of vantparler, was too mild for such a known traiterous Papist, as commendeth open rebels for martyrs, as affirmeth that the Queens subjects are lawfully discharged of the oath of obedience given to her majesty, as derideth the religion established by parliament pag. 51. I say, the Papists like impudent dogs, yelpe and bark against us, that the fathers are all on their side, because they have sucked out of their writings, a few dregs of a great quantity of good liquor contained in their vessels, having the fathers in the most and greatest matters wholly against them. And pag. 55. I say that Bristow quarreling with D. Humfrey, yelpeth like a little cur, against a great lion, and snatching pieces of his sentences, gnawen from the rest, squeleth out as though he had heard some meruelous strange soundes, &c. If this allegory be too base for Bristowes dignity, let him humble himself and crave pardon of his treasons, for I will do no reverence to a traitor, that openly bewrayeth himself in a printed book, as he and other of his complices have done. A proud hypocrite priest, of stinking, greasy, antichristian and execrable orders, I cannot find where I have termed him, except I should read over the whole book: but if I have used such speeches, I think they are no worse than his wicked behavior, & popish sacrificing priesthood deserve to have. Blasphemous heretic he giveth me often occasion to call him, and namely pag. 81. where I reprove him for calling the blessed sacrament his Lord and God, which although transubstantiation were granted, yet because the Papists affirm, that this sacrament consisteth of accidents, as the sign or external part thereof, seeing accidents are neither God nor in God, it could not be said, without blasphemy, that the sacramentis Lord and God.

Next follow reproachful terms used against Allen. The first, brazen face and iron foreheade, I do not yet find: but it signifieth nothing but notable impudence, which is noted pag. 23. where I call him impudent blasphemer because he had said of us:

did ever profit any man but to the increase of his damnation.

Again pag. 24.

Also pag. 147. I charge him with an impudent lie, where he saith, that M. Calvin doeth expound the oil whereof Saint James speaketh cap. 5. for a medicinal salve or ointment, to ease the sick man's sore, when it is manifest, that Calvin utterly rejecteth and confuteth that exposition. Likewise pag. 259. I convince him of impudent lying, because he doth willfully falsify the decrees of two councils at a clappe, saying they excommunicate all such as in any wise hinder the oblations for the departed, when both the councils Vase, and Carthage speak of them that detain the oblations or bequestes of the dead given to the church for the use of the poor. These and many like shameless assertion • , do prove that he hath a brazen face and Iron foreheade, which shameth not to put in print such monstrous untruths, and wilfullyes. But let us pass to other points. Where this impudent merchant Allen had railed intollerably against the reverend father M. Jewel, calling him the English bragger, one that in summer games might win two games of cracking & lying, with like shameless stuff:

Moreover pag. 343. where Allen had called that learned father M. Pilkington a mock Bishoppe: I said▪ If he be a mock Bishoppe, which beside his excellent learning, is also a painful and diligent preacher of the gospel, what are those unlearned asses, and reckless ruffi • ns of your sect, which have nothing of a Bishop, but a rotchet and a myter? Such are many of the prelates of other countries. Erasmus said that only England had learned Bishops. Likewise I say that Allen rayleth like a ruffian at our ministers in the ruffe of their new communion. pag. 259. The term of scornful caytife, I find not, but well he deserveth it, by deryding and scoffing at such godly learned and honorable fathers, as you may perceive by that which I have noted in him against the Bishops of Salisbury and Durisme, which is not yet the 40. part of his proud mocks and disdainful gibes.

Desperate dicke I find pag. 371. where Allen had picked a quarrel to M. Pilkington of Durisme, as he calleth him in his margent, scoffing at him in his text, that he was ashamed of his name, and therefore should loose the glory of his assertion, &c. I answered: you would fain have such a man to be your adversary, that though you took the foil, yet you might boast, that you were so bold as to fight with him. But it is an easier matter for such a desperate dicke to begin a fraie than to ende it.

Pag. 97. where Allen said, that David seeketh to be better cleansed than by remission of sins only, and to have his sins wholly blotted out, and to be made as white as snow, by his own suffering, which was not done by God's merciful pardon in the sprinkeling of the blood of Christ, I could not forbear, but cry out, O horrible blasphemer. Likewise pag. 298. where he challengeth to the popish clergy, the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek confirmed by an oath Psal. 110. which is peculiar only to our savior Christ, I affirm it more horrible blasphemy, than ever turke or Jew durst presume to boast of.

Also pag. 240. where we affirm, that men's works must not presume to win heaven, nay to purge sins, nor to meddle with Christ's work of redemption and the office of only faith, which assertions Allen calleth corruptions of Christian conditions, I say, it is a blasphomous barking of an horrible hell hounde. And I think I have said nothing more hardly, than such a devilish blasphemy deserveth to hear.

But leaving Allen, let us come to Stapleton, where he saith, our preachers have a new trick,

To proceed, page 110. & 111. where Stapleton had alleged, that which Eusebius speaketh of a heavenly crown of glory the ornament of God's friends and priests, to prove y ^• antiquity of Popish shaven crowns: I thought I had good reason to say, he is worthy to be shorn on his poll with a number of crowns, that understandeth this of a shaven crown. And I ask if there be any block so senseless, to think that Eusebius called a shaven head, the heavenly crown of glory?

Page 98. I said: They had in the first 600. years men that lived a solitary life called Monachi, Anachoritae, Heremitae, &c. but no more like our Popish boares, living in their frankes, than Angels are like devils, noting the Epicurian marks of these last times.

Also page 103. where Stapleton had cited a falsified Canon of the Nicene Council, confuted by the Greek copies and the right translation of the Latin, by Ruffinus, by Peter Crabs confession. I conclude, But such draff and dregs of falsifications, additions, detractions, mutatiōs, &c. are good enough for popish swine.

Page 79. where he complaineth, that Protestants have taken away Aucthoritie of making that which Christ bad them to make, in his last supper. I answer.

(which Jerome calleth making the body of Christ meaning the sacrament of his body) we take not away.

The term of brazen faced Stapleton, I find not, but notable impudency proved by him in sundry places. As page 28. where he is noted for charging the Protestants to say: That these 900. years and upward the church hath perished, it hath been overwhelmed with idolatry and superstition,

that God is the cause and author of evil, which blasphemy Calvin always abhorreth and confuteth. Also page 40. he is convicted of many impudent slanders. And page 46. where he saith the Protestants commonly call S. Gregory that Antichrist, which I know not whether to impute it to impudence or madness. These few examples among a great number, do prove that he deserveth the epithets of brazen faced or impudent Stapleton.

Page 77. I call him blockheaded papist, having often before detected his gross ignorance, because he scorneth at M. Haddon, as though he alleged prescription of 30. years continuance, except six of the Protestants doctrine: whereas the Papists as he saith have 900. years.

Page 75. thus I write:

The term of gross and beastly ignorance, although I find not, yet I think I have used, as I had often occasion, whereof I will note one, that page 99. To prove the antiquity of Augustine fryers, he translateth in S. Augustine frater a fryer, whereras that order began more than a 1000. years after S. Augustine, Anno Domini 1406.

Finally, page 43. where he will prove that the church of the Jews never erred, because the high priests answered truly of the nativity of Christ, and because Caiaphas prophesied unwittingly of y ^e virtue of Christ's death, I say there can be nothing more blockish, than such kind of reasoning. Again, where he saith, the whole synagogue, before the law of Christ took place, in necessary knowledge of the law did never err. For proof of this (said I) more like a block than a man, he bringeth such places of Scripture, as either show what the priests duty should be, but affirm not what their knowledge was,

Thus have I set down the occasions of as many of these speeches as I could find, except I should have read over the whole books, that the indifferent reader may see, when they be in their proper places, they sound not so hardly, to prove me a railer, as they seem for the most part, by extreme malice, impudence, ignorance, ungodliness, disdainfulnes of the adversaries to have been rather wrested from me, than of any uncharitable affection uttered by me. But in common civility, as our stately Censurer judgeth, I should have forborne these learned and reverend men, which in many respects to say the least, may be counted my equals: seeing these or the like terms, were not used amongst the Gentiles, nor of any honest or Christian writer since. I answer, civility is to be used with citizens, but not with traitors: learning and other good qualities to be respected in Christian Catholics, or at the leastwise in them that are no professed enemies of Christian Catholic religion, not in malicious heretics. For equality in learning I will not contend with them, but for superiority in truth. And yet as unlearned as I am, let the proudest of them all, or this Censurer, whom in pride and disdainfulnes I think to pass them all, attaint me of such ignorance, as I convince these learned principal pillars of Popery, in their several printed books, in so many books as I have written against them: and then let me justly bear the reproach that I shall be proved to deserve. Where he saith these terms were not used among the Gentiles, (I will add with approbation of Christians) nor of any honest or Christian writer since: his pen runneth before his memory, if he have read: or before his wit and modesty, if he have not read, what both Gentiles against traitors, and Christians against heretics and traitors have written. And if this issue might be tried in presence, I would not doubt but make his blushing countenance bewray his guilty conscience. But of this ministers scurrility against many men, he saith he might repeat a great deal more. I would he might come forth, and show what bull he hath, to rail, and use scurrility against all men, and yet condemn whom it pleaseth him of railing scurrility. But because this minister answereth many men forsooth, one said well of him, that he is the common posthorse of the Protestants, to pass you any answer without a bait, against any Catholic book which cometh in his way. This is even as good, as because this Censurer slandereth many men, another might say of him, he is the common packhorse of the Papists, to carry any fardell of lies devised against any Christian man or book that cometh in his way, and the rather because he weareth a pair of winkers over his eyes like a milhorse, being ashamed to show either his face or his name. And more truly than of me, for (with what speed soever) I pass no man's answer but mine own: where as he taketh up the bundell of slanders, devised by Staphylus, Eccius, Cocleus, Lindanus, Bolsec, and a number of other beside. But mine answers are not passed in such hast as the replies are returned with laisure, it seemeth the beasts that should bring them, are afraid of stumbling. Yet Martials epithetes remain to be examined, who being a person so vile and absurd, to rail so unmeasurably and continually against that godly learned man M. doctor Calfhil of learned and Christian memory, I was bold in my Reioynder against him, to handle in part, according to his virtues.

In the beginning, which is page 121. of the volume, in consideration of his intolerable ignorance, arrogancy & impudency, which appeareth throughout all his book, I say that whereas he termeth himself to be a bachiler of the law, he is more like a wrangling pettifogger in the law, than a sober student in divinity, which also he professeth to be, for he doth in a manner nothing else but cavil, quarrel, and scolde. Likewise in the very ende of my book, exhorting the Papists for their credits sake, to make out a better champion hereafter, I tell them as the truth is, that in this his reply, he doth nothing in a manner but either construe like an Usher, (as he was sometimes of Winchester school) or quarrel like a dogbolt lawyer. To the same purpose, page 128. where master Calfehil said: If an Angel from heaven teache otherwise than the Apostles have preached unto us, be he accursed: Martial the quarreling lawyer findeth fault with his translation, because Euangelizamus may be referred, as well to the disciples as to the Apostles, so that the disciples preaching are to be credited as well as the Apostles.

Page 138. where Martial citeth Constantine for the commendation of his cross, I say, he showeth him self an egregious ignorant person. For the sign which the Emperor commended to be a healthful sign and true token of virtue, was the name of Christ, expressed in the Charecter which he saw. And page 154. where he maketh this syllogism to prove that in time of the Eliberin Council, pictures were worshipped, which he saith, followeth necessarily upon the words of the Canon thus: That was worshipped that was forbidden to be painted on the walls: but pictures were forbidden to be painted on the walls, ergo pictures were worshipped. Answer master Calf. Hereunto I rejoin. Who would have thought that an vsher of Winchester and student in Louaine that teacheth us (as he said) an old lawyers point, would also teach us a new Logike point, to conclude affirmatively in the second figure, & that all upon particulars? Answer master Calf, quod Martial. Nay answer goose to such an argument. And reason who will with such an asse any longer about this matter, for I will hearken to his law, seeing his Logike is no better.

If sir Censurer will defend this syllogism, & prove it to be good and lawful, I will revoke my terms.

Page 142. where he saith, that bread and wine of the sacrament have no promise, I tell him he lieth like an arrogant hypocrite, for bread and wine have as good promise in the one sacrament as water in the other.

Pag. 178. where M. Calfebill had distinguished traditions into some necessary, some contrary to the word, some indifferent: I say Martial like an impudent asse, calleth on him to show in what scripture, doctor, or council he findeth this distinction of traditions. As though a man might not make a true distinction in disputation, but the same must be found in so many words, in scripture, doctor, or council, when he himself cannot deny, but the distinction is true, and every part to be found in the scriptures, doctors, and councils.

Pag. 133. I call Martial blockeheade and shameless asse, because he would prove, that the spirit of God is not judge of the interpretation of the scriptures: because Paul and Barnabas in the controversy of circumcision, went not to the word and spirit, but to the Apostles, and elders at Jerusalem.

Also pag. 213. I call him asseheade, because he saith that M. Calfehill condemneth his doctrine of only faith justifying, when he affirmeth that outward profession is necessary for every Christian man.

Likewise pag. 215. where Martial would learn whether M. Calfehill kneeling down before his father to ask him blessing, did not commit Idolatry? I say he is an asse that cannot make a difference between civil honor and religious worship.

Pag. 202. I call not only Martial, but all Papists shameless dogs and blasphemous Idolaters, which maintain, and make vows to Images, which travel to them, and offer up both prayers and sacrifices, of candles, money, Jewels, and other things unto Images. Whose Idolles have given answers, have wagged their heads and lips.

Pag. 198. I say he rayleth upon Calvin, like a ruffion and slandereth him like a devil, because he saith a ship would not carry the pieces of the cross that are shown in so many places, which yet is confirmed by testimony of Erasmus.

Pag. 170. where Martial goeth about to prove that the sacraments are no helps of our faith, I said, Did you ever hear such a filthy hog grunt so beastly, of the holy sacraments, that they should be no helps of our faith?

These are as many of the speeches noted by the censurer, as I can find, wherein I trust the indifferent reader, weighing upon what cause they were uttered, will not so lightly condemn me for a railer, seeing to rail is of private malice to revile them, that deserve no reproach, and not of zeal in defense of truth, to use vehement and sharp speeches, as all the prophets, and the mildest spirited men that ever were have used against the adversaries thereof. But the most heinous accusation is behind, that I call Staphylus a counselor to an Emperor rascal. I might answer as S. Paul did, when he was reproved for calling the high priest, painted wall: Brethren, I knew not y ^t he was an Emperors counselor: or in very deed, I know nothing in him worthy to be an honest man's counselor. But seeing it pleased an Emperor to accept him, it is as great a fault, as if an enemy of mean condition, should call an English counselor, rascal. So saith our sharp censurer. But if he mean those that be of the Queens majesties privy counsel, I will not say he playeth the rascal, but either the ignorant fool, or the malicious vile person to compare y ^• Apostate Staphylus, even in his counsellership, with the meanest of their honors. For they that know the manner of the princes of Germany and of other foreine princes can testify, that personages of mean estate, only being learned in y ^e laws, are accepted of the Emperor and other states, as their counselors, whose counsel perhapes they never use, but may if it please them, as of counsellors at law. So that one man is counselor to the Emperor, and to many other princes. As for example, Lutolphus Schraderus doctor of both laws, was ordinary professor in the University of Frankeforde, and counselor of the Emperor, of the Elector, & Marquis of Brandeburge, of the dukes of Brunswich, Luneburge, Megelburge, and of many other princes of Germany. This was a very great and wise man, but Cassanaeus in Cat. glor. ••• di, part. 10. Consid. 41. saith, that every simple advocate did use to call him self the kings counselor of France, before order was taken, that none should usurp that title, except he were called unto some office in the courts. And speaking of such as were counselors in office, in his time, of whose dignity he writeth much, he complaineth that they were promoted unto that dignity in parliamentes, by means of money, or some other unknown means part. 7. Conf. 13. Such a noble counselor was Staphylus, having some knowledge in the laws, being preferred to that title by the Papists of favor more than of worthiness to give him some shadow of countenance, when he became an Apostate from true religion, and from those Christian princes and noble men, by whom he was before upholden. And yet in truth, if the printer had not mistaken my writing, I called him Renegate and not rascal, as before I called him beastly Apostate. Perhaps the censurer will say, I mende the matter well to call an Emperors counselor, a beastly Apostate. But so might I have done, though he had been an Emperor himself, for what else was Julian the Emperor but a beastly Apostate or Renegate from Christian religion which once he professed? Yea such an Apostate is worse than a beast, for he declareth himself thereby to be a reprobate. Therefore the Christians in his time, whereas the church had always used to pray for heathen tyrants, that held the empyre, and made havoc of the church by persecution, contrariwise prayed against this Apostate, that God would confound him and shorten his time. Yea the godly constant Bishops, did openly inveigh against him, as Mares Bishop of Chalcedon, which openly called him impious, Atheist & Apostate. And when Julian counterfeiting mildenes did nothing but revile him by his blindness, saying the Galilean thy God cannot cure thee, he answered, I thank my God Christ, that I am blind, that I might not see one so void of godliness as thou art. Therefore Staphylus being but an Emperors counselor, as he was, •• y endure to hear worse for his Apostasy, than I have spoken against him.

The quarrel of words being ended, it is time to go to the matter. First pag. 14. of his answer to Master Charkes preface, he noteth that D. Fulke against Bristowes Mot. pa. 98. findeth, that it is evident by scripture, that heretics may be burned, against Luther. That blasphemous heretics are to be put to death, I find in scripture, by the law of blasphemers Leu. 24. and by the law of false prophets Deut. 13. neither doth Luther (I think) deny, but the equity of the same laws doth still remain, although not everyone that erreth obstinately, ought to be dealt with so extremely. Also pag. 82. of that book I say, that all protestants are one in God and Christ, their redeemer, from which unity, dissention about ceremonies cannot separate them: and yet I except such schismatics as delight in contention. The controversy between Luther and us, doth not hinder us from this unity, although Luther and other of preposterous zeal of godliness, do otherwise account of us, which error is of infirmity and not of malice.

The pag. 23. of the same answer, there is another charge where I say: that text, Vow ye and render your vows to the Lord, is a text that pertaineth to the Old Testament, meaning that it must have the exposition according to the law, of such things as God did allow and were in men's power to perform. For what if a man vowed to sacrifice a dog? What say we to Iepthes rash vow? To the vow of them that vowed to kill Paul? Our censurer reporteth my words,

There is one lie by addition. In the same place to the text, If thou wilt be perfect, go and s • ll what thou hast, &c. I say, it is a singular trial, to that one person. F •• every man is not bound so to do, yet our censur •• cauileth, that so all the other words spoken to that young man, may be restrained and made singular, as whatsoever else was spoken to any singular person. As though my reason were, that therefore it was singular, because it was spoken to one man. As if we had not general laws and rules to know what is enjoined to all men, what to some men, and what to a singular person. In the next pag. 24. he quarelleth at my exposition of the saying of S. James cap. 2. that a man is justified of works, and not of faith only. Where I say, works, are not denied to justify before men, and only faith without works, is thought to justify before God, Rom. 3. This he calleth a poor devise, because Saint James talking of faith without works, saith it cannot save a man. Nay rather this is a poor cavil. For S. James talketh of another kind of faith, as well as of another kind of justification, when his saying seemeth to be contradictory to Saint Paul. And that in the place in question he meaneth justification before men as in the other place a faith void of good works, it is manifest, both by his own words: Show me thy faith by thy works, and also by the example of Abraham's trial, which was not to inform God of his justification, but to give testimony before men.

Pag. 25. to show how protestants deny all fathers, he bringeth me for an example in many places. First he saith, the consent of ancient fathers is alleged, attributing superiority to Peter, upon that text Math. 16. Thou art Peter, &c. This he saith I avoid very lightly, saying that diverse of the ancient fathers were deceived in opinion of Peters prerogative. As for the consent of all, which he would seem to make for it, is false: but this is not all mine answer, but that this prerogative appeareth not in the scriptures, which was heuier than the answerers pen could bear: or if he think it doeth, let him prove by syllogism out of the scriptures if he can. But until he can, I will say this is a lie by detraction.

Secondly where I say, those ancient fathers that expound the text John 5. I came in my fathers name, &c. of antichrist, have no ground of their exposition. I prove it by example of Theudas, the Egyptian, Cocabus, and other that deceived the Jews in their own name, yet none of them was antichrist.

Thirdly where he saith, Jerome with all the ecclesiastical writers, are alleged for the interpretation of the words of Daniel cap. 7. which interpretation I do not admit, because it hath no direction out of the scriptures, he maketh a lie by multiplication: for only Jerome, with such ecclesiastical writers out of whom he gathered his interpretation, is alleged.

Fourthly he slandereth me, when he chargeth me to say, Augustine doth wrongfully interpret the place, for I allow of Augustine's sayings to be true, but I say he speaketh it upon a text wrongly interpreted, that is falsely translated. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the sun, whereas the truth is, He hath made in the heavens a Tabernacle for the sun, and so doth Jerome interpret it • o • i posuit tabernaculum in eis.

Fifthly. where he saith, that S. Ambrose, Ephrem, and Bede are alleged for interpretation of certain scriptures, he saith, he noteth not what, for they are alleged for memories of the dead,

This I speak not of these three, but of such as would go about to prove prayer for the dead out of the scripture: &c. If M. Censurer think Chrysostom have applied the scripture rightly, let him gather his argument into a syllogism, and we will shape him another answer.

Seventhly I will not deny, but I said that those fathers, whom Martial coted, did rather dally in trifling allegories, than soundly prove, that the cross was prefigured in such places of scripture as they allege. As Augustine maketh the two sticks, that the widow of Sarepta gathered, a figure of the cross. Augustine and Tertullian, the lifting up of Moses hands, &c. in which places yet they meant the virtue of Christ's death, rather than the holiness of the sign.

Moreover, page 33. Master Fulk is charged to abuse the simple people, in saying often times: prayer for the dead is an heresy, because the Montanistes, which were heretics held it. Nay sir, because the Montanistes are the first that invented prayer for the dead, & Purgatory, seeing neither in scripture, nor doctor, is any mention of either of both before Montanus, therefore he saith prayer for the dead is an error. But he will have me prove, that this was ever accounted one of Montanus heresies. Tertullian being a Montanist proveth it sufficiently, for he inveigheth against the Catholics of his time, whom he used to call Psychicos, for de ••• ing Purgatory, & objecteth against them the paraclet which was the spirit of Montane, which affirmed, that none but martyrs went straight to heaven, and that all other went to hell, where they must pay the uttermost farthing before they come forth, lib. de anima, capite de inferis, & an aliquid patiantur apud inferos animae, whereas he was of another judgment, while he was a Catholic, and did write against Marcion, noting it as one of his errors, that he affirmed all the fathers before Christ, to have gone to hell, as you Papists do. Aduersus Marcionem lib. 4. whereas he saith against Martion, aliud enim Inferi vt puto, aliud quo{que} Abrahae sinus: Hel I trow is one thing, and Abraham's bosom another thing. But against the Catholics, he writeth, that Christ descendeth to hell, to make the patriarches and prophets partakers of him,

which lived long after Tertullian, allowed prayer for the dead, it proveth not that it was no error in Montanus, but rather that it was an error in them, seeing before Montanus no Catholic allowed prayer for the dead. To his proud challenge, I offer not only this that I have said, of the error of praying for the dead, and Purgatory, but of some partes of the heresy of the Pelagians, condemned in old time, and accused for heresy: revived by the Papists, and the contrary doctrine by them accursed. As the Tridentine Council, Sess. 6. Can. 7. This doctrine, and that which necessarily followeth of it, is directly contrary to the scripture, saying that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and to the decree of the Mileuitane Council, Cap. 5. and to the scripture there alleged, Without me you can do nothing, ergo a man without grace cannot dispose himself to grace. For no man can dispose himself to grace, except he please God, but without faith it is impossible to please him.

Again, where the 16. Can. of the same Tridentine Chapter, accurseth him that shall say: That the commandments are impossible to be kept, by a man justified and set under grace: it is contrary to the sixth Canon of the Mileuitane Council, which concludeth, that no man can be without sin, according to the saying of the Evangelist: If we say we have no sin, &c.

But whereas we acknowledge, that we hold for truth, that which by Epiphanius and Augustine was held for an error, in Arius, namely, prayer for the dead, answering that those two doctors were deceived, he saith, we condemn the whole church, as though it were necessary that the whole church were deceived as much as they, or if the whole church were deceived, that we condemn it of heresy, seeing prayer for the dead as it was allowed by those fathers, was an error, not an heresy. But when by Epiphanius images in the Church are condemned and defaced, when the worshipping of the image of Christ and his Apostles, is both by Epiphanius and Augustine condemned for an heresy of the Carpocrati • es & Gnostikes, what have they to answer but either to condemn those fathers, or themselves of error, or else to find out some cavil against their own conscience, and against the knowledge and judgment of all learned and indifferent men?

Page 54. against Bristowes Motiues, I say that Vigilantius (whom the Papists make so great an heretic, for denying invocation of Saints & superstitious reverence of their relics) was banished only by Jerome, of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man, and a learned. Master Censurer changeth my words, as pleaseth him. The pride & cruelty of Augustine the Monk, which came to convert the Saxons, is accused by our British stories, and proof thereof brought of his disdainfulnes, in receiving the British bishops, and in procuring the slaughter of so many hundred students of Bangor. His ignorance & unskillfulness is bewrayed by him self in his writing to Pope Gregory: where he moveth questions, which a mean licentiate in Louaine, would be ashamed to doubt of. And truly I said of him, that he did not so much good in planting faith where it was not, as in cor rupting the sincerity of the faith where it was before he came. And if he planted any human traditions, & confirmed them by lying signs and miracles, as a forerunner of Antichrist, which was even immediately after his time to be openly shown: or if by subtle practice, miracles have been feigned to have been done by him and reported by a credulous man Bede, it hurteth not our cause: seeing other writers report him to have been both a proud and a cruel man. And yet we receive all that doctrine which he taught, agreeable to the doctrine of the Apostles of Christ: whatsoever he taught beside, we are not to receive it of an Angel from heaven, much less of Augustine from Rome. But where the Censurer reporteth, that I should call Bede a fabulous man, he is not able to bring any proof thereof: for albeit I acknowledge, that he reporteth many fables for true miracles, yet this reverence I profess to have of him, that I think, he feigned not one of them him self, but had them as he confesseth by relation of other. Purg. 333. But a fabulous man is he, that maketh lies, and • uenteth fables. Page 97. he accuseth me of palpable flattery, because I say, that Howlet had no consideration of her majesties singular virtues, and other of high estate under her, while he complaineth of the wicked and loose times: and this I did to scrape a little favor from the court, and to make the other odious. I thank God, favor is not so hard for me at the court, that I need to scrape it, especially by such fond means which hath rather flowed towards me from her majesty and other of high place more than I have deserved: But to make the other odious for his slanderous railing and hypocrisy, I will not deny but my purpose was, and yet with truth, & sufficient ground of his own writings. For whereas in public writing, both he and some other of his complices have professed their reverent opinion of her majesties singular virtues, and other of high estate, that are under her, in his familiar letter to his worshipful friend, he condemneth all persons of this time, to be void of all sense of virtuous life, except these few popish gentlemen, which he termeth precise in matters of religion, and respective of their conscience, whom he doth so ambitiously commend, that he doth most slanderously condemn all other, that be friends to religion and the state, among whom there be (God he praised) great numbers to speak nothing of the prince and nobility, who in godly life and precise walking in the fear of God, and the obedience of his laws, may shame all the popish hypocrites in the world. But it is best to set down Howlets own words & mine answer to them, that the reader may judge, whether I have flattered as the Censurer saith more palpably, or Howlet slandered more venemously.

Hereto I began to answer thus:

Beside this intolerable slander of the whole state, and all the professers of the truth, from the prince to the poorest subject, I would the hypocrisy and flattery of this Papist, and other of his cote were known, who in his public epistle which he presumeth to dedicate to the Queens majesty, not a little extolleth her princely virtues, with no small commendation of the nobility, but here in his familiar letter, sent over sea to his friend, bewrayeth that he hath no opinion in deed of any sense of virtue, remaining in any person, save only in a few obstinate Papists. Wherefore let men of understanding judge, whether he in his dedicatorie epistle, or I in this reproof of his familiar letter, have flattered so palpably: and whether in this reply I have played the parasite, or the censurer in this malignant slander, the shameless sycophant. But let us hear what reason he hath to convince me of flattery. When men accuse the times (saith he) must they except Princes by name or else be accounted traitors? As though Howlet accuseth the times only and not the persons also. Yea all men except the recusantes, are with him utterly void of all sense of virtue, and in worse case also. But why say you, men must be accounted traitors? I accused Howlet but of dissimulation, and flattery▪ but belike you acknowledge such slander more meet to descry an heinous traitor, than a dissembling flatterer. I do not altogether mislike your censure▪ although for that matter my purpose was not to accuse him so deeply. But you proceed and ask, What Apostle, what ancient fathers did ever so? And I will ask you again, what Apostle, what ancient father, did ever in public writing profess his reverent opinion of any princes singular virtues and of other of high estate under him, and yet nevertheless in a familiar letter, condemn the whole state of that princes government (as Howlet doeth) excepting no persons, but such as are disobedient subjects, and the princes, either privy or professed enemies? Beside that the comparison is very odious, between an Apostle and an Howlet, a public trumpet sounding against sin, and a birde of the night schriching in a secret and familiar letter. And if you will say, it was not meant, that the letter should be private, but public, as I can easily believe you, if you do affirm it: I will answer, that such Howlets come not from Athens, as can no better observe the measure and comeliness of the person they pretend to be. For to use such hyperbolical amplifications, in a familiar epistle as by zeal could not honestly be excused in a public sermon, saving your censure and his correction, I take it to be but homely rhetorike. But you pardon our necessity, because extreme poverty driveth us to these shifts. You are a man of great consideration, to bear with our infirmities: yet I hope you shall find few men so easy to believe, as you are bold to affirm, that only want of other reasons, maketh us fly to accusing of your persons, of disloyalty and disobedience to the prince and state. But if you will in deed discover our poverty, answer our writings thoroughly, directly, and orderly, or else giving over all prejudicate conceit of former handling or mishandling any cause. Take any question in controversy, and set forth the riches of your arguments in plain syllogisms, & try whether we be able to answer you, or else if you had rather answer us, let us know your mind, and you shall find some ready to maintain any cause of ours, by plain syllogisms only. In the mean time to find you occupy • ▪ • here hath been a book called syllogisticon set foo • th by master Fox, more than twenty years ago: let us see in a sheet of printed paper, what ye have to answer those syllogisms, whether you will find them defective in form or matter, or else there is no reason, but you should grant their conclusion.

Pag. 146. to prove that protestants are lords of the scripture, to make them say what they list, D. Fulkes words to master Bristow are cited.

This I say alleging no one place of scripture to prove it, saith our censurer. I say as much of holding of councils, which Bristow with the rest, will have us as apes to have borrowed of the popish church. Whereas I affirm, they are proved out of the scriptures, if Bristow will reply & deny, y ^t such things may be proved out of the scriptures, it shall be no hard matter to do it.

Yet in the mean time, if you think I have said more than I can show, I will give you this taste. For division of Churches or parishes Act. 14. v. 23. Elders in every church and Tit. 1. v. 5. elders in every city or town. Holding of councils Act. 15. excommunication where the party cast out is to be taken for an heathen or publicane. Math. 18. v. 17. separation or suspension where the party separated is to be taken as a brother. 2. Thess. 3. public solemnizing of marriage Mat. 1. v. 18. where betrothing and public coming together are expressed. Example John. 2. for punishment of heretics, I have cited before. What the Puritans will grant, I care not, although I think there are none of them that are so called will deny any of these except he be some mad schismatic: and for the last, which you say, was for a long time denied by our selves, till now we have burned some for religion in England, you should have told howe long. For we have not now first of all consented to the burning of heretics. The Arians and Anabaptists burned in king Edward's days, for thirty years ago can bear witness. But you may say your pleasure. I know few in other countries, but heretics themselves, that deny it to be lawful to punish blasphemous obstinate heretics by death. If any have any private opinion, what have we to do wich it, or to be charged by it? If I should note your phrase, when you say that protestants do now reign in England, as though there were more kings than one: you would say perhaps I were over captious. Well, let it pass. But such things (said I) as are not evidently contained in the word, a Christian is not absolutely bound to believe them. In plain dealing you should have bestowed a note in your margent, where I have so said, as well as placed there heretical audacity, of your papistical charity. The saying I confess or the like, yet the circumstances of the place, where it was uttered, would perhaps have bewrayed some part of your usual and honest dealing. But what cause have you to cri • • ut so loud. Behoulde the last refuge of a proud heretical spirit, in breaking where he cannot otherwise get out? Call you it proud heresy to hold that nothing is to be credited upon necessity of salvation, which hath not authority of the holy scripture, which are able to make a man wise to salvation, which are written that believing we might be saved, which are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to every good work?

And why do ye dare M. Charke to a • ouch, that which I have affirmed? I know he dare affirm and is able to defend this truth, but there is no reason that he should be dared with my assertions. I dare affirm to your face, if you dare show it, that a Christian man is not bound to believe, that the common creed was made by the Apostles, after that fabulous manner that you papists do teach: Namely, that Peter made one piece, Andrew another, and so of the rest: yet I doubt not, but it is gathered out of the doctrine and writings of the Apostles. But you have ancient doctors, which affirm that it was made by the Apostles. Origen, Ter • llian, Jerome, Ruffinus, Ambrose, Agustine, and all the primitive church do so constantly affirm to be their doing • s. Let us consider then in order. First Origen in pro •• . lib. de princip. testifieth, that the Apostles by their preaching did most plainly deliver y ^e sum of faith according to the capacity of the most simple, whereof he maketh a rehearsal containing in deed some articles of the creed, but neither all nor any one in such form of words as our creed doth express them. And before he beginneth the rehearsal of them, thus he saith: Species vero eorū quae per praedicationem Apostolicā manifest traduntur, istae sunt. These are the particulars of those things, which by the preaching of the Apostles are manifestly delivered. Which words do show, that the Apostles in deed taught the doctrine, yet prove not that they made this creed, rather than the Nicene creed or Athanasius Creed.

Tertullian against Praxeas, much after the same manner,

That the rule of faith contained in the Creed, is as ancient as the preaching of the Gospel, I always agreed with Tertullian: but that the Apostles made the Creed, I hear him yet say never a word.

Jerome ad Pammachium against the errors of John of Jerusalem, saith:

yet it followeth not, that he affirmeth it to be made by the Apostles, which it is sufficient, that it is received of the doctrine of the Apostles. Ruffinus in deed, expositione in symbolum, saith it was an opinion received from the elders, that the Apostles before their dispersion made this brief form of belief, which is called their Creed. And I acknowledge the opinion hath some probability, but that it is to be believed of necessity of salvation, neither Ruffinus saith, nor if he did were he able to prove it. Ambrose, Ep. 81. Syricio, to prove that Marie in the birth of Christ was a virgins, saith: Credatur symbolo Apostolorum quod Ecclesia Romana iteratum semper custodit & seruat. Let credit be given to the Apostles Creed, which being repeated often, the Church of Rome doth always keep and observe. That this Creed is called the Apostles symbol or Creed, it may well be, because it containeth the sum of the Apostles doctrine although it had not been compiled by them. The testimony of Augustine, which you quote Serm. 118. De tempore, must needs be some younger man's, because he repeteth the very words of Ruffinus. which Augustine living almost in his time, would not repeat as his own. You might as well, and more for your purpose have quoted Serm. 115. De tempore, where every Apostle maketh an Article, which is the absurd opinion of the late Papists, but never was credited by Augustine himself, howsoever these sermons have gotten under the shadow of his name. To conclude, as some of the ancient fathers think the Creed was of the Apostles making, so none of them affirmeth, that it is damnable to doubt thereof, so a man doubt not of the doctrine contained therein, whereof the holy ghost is author, as it is proved by the holy scriptures, whether the Apostles or their successors did gather this short sum or form of belief, which we call the Apostles Creed.

For the observation of the Easter day, which is the seconde point wherein you dare Master Charke, I dare affirm, that seeing it is not commanded in the scripture, the observation thereof is not necessary to salvation. That Eusebius calleth it an Apostolic tradition, it is not material, seeing that very contention, which he reporteth was about the observation of Easter, according to the Apostolic tradition, by the immediate successors of the Apostles, Anicetus and Polycarpus do plainly testify, what credit is to be given to the traditions of the Apostles without the warrant of the Apostles writings. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 26. For while Anicetus pretendeth the tradition of S. Peter, and Polycarpus S. John, and neither would yield to other, they teache us what to esteem of traditions apostolical, not contained in the holy scriptures: Namely, that in these days there can be no certainty of them, when they which might see and hear the Apostles themselves, could not agree about them. Last of all, which you make the greatest matter, the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ after his birth, although for my part I do believe it, and wish all men so to do, yet dare I affirm, that it is not damnable, not to believe it except it can be proved, that the scripture hath taught it. But you object against me, first the condemnation of Heluidius, testified by Sozomenus. Whereto I answer, that he was justly condemned, not because he believed not, but because he did obstinately deny it, & troubled the peace of the church, about an unnecessary question.

But you ask us, if we remember not the solemn curse for this matter, of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose. Ep. 81. & 79. It seemeth you remember it not yourself, for that curse contained in the ende of the Ep. 81. was against them that like Manichees, denied that our Savior Christ took flesh of a virgins. And Ep. 79. he reproveth them which did contend, that the virgins Marie had more sons than our Savior Christ, which to affirm is a great error: and convinced by the authority of the scripture, seeing as Ambrose well noteth, our Savior Christ committed his mother to John the Evangelist, which had not been needful, if she had natural sons of her own, which might take care of her.

But you will stop our mouths if you can, (as you say) with these words of Saint Augustine, Integra fide credendum est, &c.

and to have remained a virgins after her childbirth, neither must we yield to the blasphemy of Heluidius. Your author goeth on and telleth, what that was. Qui dixis, fuit virgo ante partum, non virgo post partum. Who said, she was a virgins before her childbirth, she was no virgins after her childbirth. But where shall we find this saying in Saint Augustine? Your quotation directeth us to Augustine in Encherid. Cap. 34. where in deed some mention is of Mary's virginity, namely, that she conceived in virginity, but nothing of Heluidius or his heresy. Wherefore it secmeth, that out of Canisius, or some other man's collection, your common places of the doctors sayings are borrowed, and not taken out of your own reading. Therefore howsoever you have mistaken the matter, the saying you allege is in the bastard book De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, Cap. 69. which may as easily be known from Augustine's writing, as a goose from a swanne. And yet if it were of as good authority as Augustine's own writing, it were not sufficient to stop our mouth, when we hear that we are slandered. For we dare not say, with Heluidius, (which is the blasphemy noted by that writer) that the virgins Marie was no virgins after her childbirth, although we say, that it is no article of faith, necessary to salvation, except it have demonstration out of the holy scriptures: neither doth your author say, it is blasphemy to doubt of it, but to deny it, although for my part I do neither deny it, nor doubt of it, but believe it as I do many other truths, not expressed in the scripture, but yet not as articles of Christian faith necessary to salvation. I will conclude with a saying of Saint Jerome, and stop your mouth if I can, which concerning this very question in controversy against Heluidius, to show what a man is bound to believe upon necessity of salvation, even that which is contained in the scriptures: and that which is not contained, that he is not bound upon loss thereof, to believe, thus writeth: Sed vt haec quae scripta sunt, non nega • ius, ita • a quae non sunt scripta, renuimus. Natum D ••• es • e de virgins credimus, quia legimus: Mariam •• psisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. less learning, and authority, as the barbarous style in many places declareth▪ secondly, he faith not, that it is a matter of faith, to believe the perpetual virginity of Marie, but that she conceived, brought forth, and remained a virgins after her childbirth. Thirdly, he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemy, but the obstinate denying of Heluidius, which said she was no virgins after her childbirth. But how will you avoid that which S. Jerome writeth, We refuse those things that are not written, we believe not because we have not read in y ^e scripture, anything hereof as necessary to salvation.

Pag. 158. you do not see why you should believe a Charke or a Fulke, coming but yester day from the grammar school, before a Cyprian, a Tertullian, a Basil, a Jerome, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, especially in a matter of fact (as your case is) seeing they lived more than twelve or thirteen hundred years nearer to the deed doing than these ministers do. Why sir, I pray you, who requireth you to believe any minister of these days, before any of those ancient fathers, in respect of the credit of the persons, and not of the truth which they bring? You know that Panormitane thinketh more credit is to be given to one lay man, speaking the truth according to scripture, than to all men of all ages, speaking contrary to the truth or beside the truth of the scriptures. But it is a matter of fact you say, whether such and such traditions came from Christ & his Apostles or no, and therefore they that lived nearer the time of the deed doing by twelve or thirteen hundredth years, are more like to know the truth than we. I answer, that all things that you pretend for traditions, are not of one sort, some are contrary to the word of God, and are reproved by evidence of the holy scriptures, other are beside the word of God, and therefore not necessary to be received, because they are not found in the holy scriptures. As for the prerogative of antiquity, cannot argue a certain knowledge of the fact in these ancient fathers, seeing in two or three hundredth years, that was before their time, and the time of the deed supposed to be done, any fable might be obtruded under pretence of such tradition as we prove that many were. Yea when they that were nearest of all to the Apostles time, as Polycarpus and Anicetus, do not agree what was the Apostles traditiō, which was not expressed in their writing, it is manifest, that they of much latter time, could have no certainty thereof. And that whatsoever ceremony or practice the Apostles delivered, which was not expressed in the scripture, was but temporal or arbitrary in the power of the Church to use, or not use, as it might best serve for edifying. Finally, where you affirm, that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar school▪ to make it seem that he is but a young grammatian, either your days be near as long as thirty years, or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him, or at leastwise your malice over reacheth your knowledge. But yet to this extremity (of crediting one Charke, or Fulke before so many ancient fathers) you say you are driven, and bid men hearken a little howe D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions. And first S. Cyprian alleging the tradition of Christ himself, concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice: but if Cyprian had been well urged (faith Fulke) he would have better considered of the matter. Thus you would make men believe, that I oppose nothing but mine own authority or credit against S. Cyprian. But then you shamefully beelie me: for this is the matter, and these are my words which you have gelded at your pleasure.

Who seeth not I suppose no less authority against Cyprian, than of Cyprian himself, and therefore I boast not of mine own credit above his?

here is a reason of Fulkes mislike of Tertullian's judgment added, because he affirmeth tradition of the Apostles, without the writing of the Apostles. But in deed there is in the place by you noted, other arguments in these words: Tertullian's judgment of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt, This last and invincible argument in rehearsing my words you leave out, which because perhaps you could not see in sewe words, I will set it more abroad. The universal spiritual armor of God, is delivered by S. Paul Eph. 6. blessing with the sign of the cross is not there delivered by S. Paul: therefore blessing with the sign of the cross is no part of the spiritual armor of God. Now let us see, whether you will believe a Paul before a Tertullian, or a Basel: or a Fulke with S. Paul, before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paul or against S. Paul?

But you go forward. S. Jerome is alleged, saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles. Fulke. Jerome untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. My words are against Bristowes Mot. pag. 35. these:

Among so many arguments and authorities, cited for proof you can find nothing, but Fulke faith bluntly, Jerome untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. Sed perge mentiri. S. Chrysostom is alle • ged saying that the Apostles decreed, that in the sacrifice of the ••• tar, there should be made prayer for the departed: Fulke: where he saith, it was decreed by the Apostles, &c. he must pardon us for crediting him, because he cannot show it out of the acts and writings of the Apostles. If I had added none other argument, this had been sufficient for us, to for bear crediting anything of the Apostles, whereof we have not the holy ghost in their writings to be witness. But you shall hear what I oppose against Chrysostom, beside this. Against pag. 303. it followeth immediately upon these words noted by M. Censurer: And we will be bold to charge him with his own saying: you go forward, and say that page 362. and 363. of the same book I answer to diwerse fathers alleged together, beside Chrysostom, for the same purpose: Who is witness that this is the tradition of the Apostles? you will say: Tertullian, Cyprian, Agustine, Jerome, and a great many more. But I would learn why the Lord would not have this set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul? Why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Agustine, and other such as you n • me? But this is a counterfeit institution, and feigned tradition. Here you note in the margent a proud question, which is not so right as if I should note against it a proud censure. For it is a question that may be demanded in humility, why the Lord if it were his pleasure, that the dead should be prayed for at the communion, as a thing necessary for them, and dutiful for us: would not reveal so much by those witnesses that are above all exception, rather than by such as are all manifestly convicted of errors, as you Papists cannot deny. But because neuera Papist of you all is able to answer this question, to the satisfaction of any man's doubtful conscience, you think best to reject it, and say it is a proud question. As though it were pride for any man to seek confirmation of his faith, against so just a cause of doubt. But in truth, my words are more full than you allege them, against the pretended institution. If it be lawful for me once to pose the Papists, as you do often the protestants, which wrote to that effect. Last of all you say, that being urged by the like, I discredit all antiquity, saying: It is a common thing with the ancient writers to defend every ceremony which was used in their time, by tradition of the Apostles. In deed the words are mine, the occasion as of all • he rest frandulently and falsely omitted. For upon occasion of Chrysostom, alleged to prove that mention of the dead was made at the communion, by tradition of the Apostles, for which I remit him to mine answer of Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. I ad moreover these words. you say there are set before you, a pair of balances, with Charke and Fulke, in one ende: and Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, Basel, &c. in another ende. And Fulke opposeth himself against them all. Whe •• as in every place by you noted, he opposeth either the holy scriptures, or other ancient writers, or the same writers themselves, or evident and manifest reason, to prove that such things are untruly fathered upon the Apostles tradition.

Last of all, for your farewell, you charge D. Fulke to affirm, that the book of the Maccabees was written with a profane and Ambitious spirit. Against purg. pag. 209. In deed in that place among many other reasons which I bring, to prove that story not to be the Canon of the scriptures, I say, that he maketh a very profane preface, ambitiously commending his travels and showing the difference between a story at large and an abridgement &c. If you be able to defend that book to be Canonical, answer my reasons, & prepare yourself to answer as many •• re, as may be alleged to convince the vanity and falsehood of that stories and so I leave you to a better mind, if it be God's will to give it you.

I find also, that in the Popish annotations, upon the New Testament printed at Reims, my writings are carped at in two places, the former vpō 2. Thes. 2. where my words against Saunders Rock, page. 248. & page 278. are rehearsed: In which I say that Leo & Gregory bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat near five or six hundred years before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with the long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter, was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy scriptures of God (against which no continuance of error can prescribe) doeth either allow or bear • withal.

Again, the testimonies of Leo & Gregory, bishops of Rome, as always so now I deem to be unmeet to be heard in their own cause, though otherwise they were not the worst men, yet great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, which soon after their days took possession of the chair, which they had helped to prepare for him.

For this I am called a malepeart scholar of Beza's impudent school. But by what reason? For placing the mystery of Antichrist, as working in the see of Rome even in S. Peters time. That the mystery of Antichrist did work in S. Peters time, the text of S. Paul is plain. That it did work in Rome, where Antichrist should be openly shown, S. John is plain in the Revelation. Ca. 17. ver. 9. & 18. yea, the Papists confessing that S. Peter called Rome Babylon, must needs grant as much: this only then remaineth in controversy, whether in the sea or church of Rome, the mystery of iniquity did work, from the Apostles time, until Antichrist was openly shown. Seeing it wrought at Rome, it wrought either in the church or altogether out of the church: but it wrought not altogether out of the church, therefore it wrought in the church. That the mystery of iniquity preparing for that Antichrist wrought not altogether out of the church, it is manifest, because the seat of Antichrist is prophesied to be in the Temple and Church of God. Without the Church, was not the mystery of iniquity against Christ, but open wickedness and persecution of Christ's Church. Therefore within the Church that mystery did work. By what means first, it is not certain, because it was a secrete, not revealed by the Apostle. Some conjecture that it was by preferring one bishop before all the clergy of elders or priests, which at the first were equal. Some think that such factions began at Rome, as afterward were at Corinth, one holding of Cephas, that is Peter, another of some other. How ever it was, the challenge made to Peters chair, and from the days of Victor, diverse bishops of Rome creeping up by little and little, & pretending authority over other Churches, & other churches reverencing that see, for many good respects, were abused by Satan to set forward his purpose in advancing the throne of Antichrist. And where I said, that Leo & Gregory were great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, my meaning was not, that they did wittingly & willingly prepare a seat for Antichrist, but that the d • uel by God's permission, because he was to send the efficacy of error into the world, took hold in the time appointed of that authority, which the bishops for the dignity of their see, and as they thought for the benefit of the church, did labor so greatly to maintain & increase. Neither write I anything contrary to the challenge of that reverend father the bishop of Sarum, as they charge me, who said at Paul's cross, O Gregory, O Leo, if we be deceived, you have deceived us: For his meaning was not thereby to allow whatsoever they had done or written, but that in some such matters as are in controversy between the Papists and us▪ even Gregory and Leo are witnesses against them.

First note the intolerable pride of these Popish interpreters▪ that challenge to themselves all learning and knowledge in divinity, condemning all other men of ignorance & mere ignorance in the grounds of divinity. So playeth Bristow with the bishop of Sarum, whom in the place by them quoted, I reproved in these words: The like impudent cavil he bringeth against M. Jewel, whō no man I think without laughter can read, to be charged with ignorance by blundering Bristow, for affirming Christ to be a priest according to his deity, whom the Apostle expressly saith by his eternal spirit to have offered himself, Heb. 9. ver. 14. But that you may the better understand this controversy between us, we deny not that Christ was a priest according to his humanity, but we affirm that whole Christ is a priest as he is both God and man. For in the office of priesthood two things must be considered, a ministry and an authority. In respect of the ministerial part, our Savior Christ performed that office as man: but in respect of authority of entering into the holiest place, & reconciling us to God & presenting us unto God, which was the principal part of his priesthood, he did perform it, as the son of God, as Lord and maker of the house, and not as a servant, but as God, which hath created all things. Heb. 3. verse. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. & 6. Against this sound doctrine, let us examine what the heretics allege. First, they charge it most odiously with Arianism, but without all • park of reason, seeing we distinguish plainly the authority of God the son, which is equal with his father▪ from the ministry of y ^e man Jesus Christ inferior to his father as touching his manhood. Secondly, they charge us that we stick not to say: Christ was a priest or did sacrifice according to his Godhead. We say he was a priest and did offer sacrifice, both according to his godhead & according to his manhood. And the same sa • eth the Apostle in effect, when he saith: The blood of Christ, which by his eternal spirit offered himself unreprovable to God, shall purge your conscience, &c. Heb. 9. 14. For not y ^e blood of beasts, nor of any man though he had been innocent, but the blood of that man which was God, was the price of our redemption, in which respect the Apostle Act. 20. ver. 28. saith that God purchased his Church unto him self by his own blood. For by the eternal spirit is understood that infinite power of the divinity, united to the humanity, by which the sacrifice of Christ was consecrated, that by the same lively or quickening virtue, by which he created us he might also restore us. Whereunto our Savior Christ had regard, when he said John. 6. It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. But this (say the Papists) is to make Christ God the fathers priest, & not his son. Nay rather, this is to acknowledge Christ to be both his fathers son, and his priest, even as the Apostle saith: The law appointeth priests, men that have infirmity: but the word of the oath which is after the law, the Son forever perfected. Heb. 7. v. 28. Where by the oppositiō of men having infirmity, with the Son perfected forever: it is most clear, that the word of the oath maketh Christ, as he is the Son of God, a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Where I cannot omit the shameful corruption of this text, in the popish translation, which to hide this opposition, between men, and God the son of God, hath altogether left out this word, men, although it be in the Latin expressed manifestly: Lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes, which they translate thus: For the law appointeth priests, them that have infirmity.

But to proceed. Our accusers add further, that our assertion is to make Christ to do sacrifice and homage to God his father, as his Lord, and not as his equal in dignity and nature. I answer no more than when S. Paul saith, that Christ when he was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God▪ he made himself of no reputation, took upon him the shape of a servant, became obedient to the death, even the death of the cross. I have sufficiently before distinguished, that all partes of his priesthood that required obedience, service, homage, ministry, subjection, he performed as man: but the authority of reconciling men unto God, he wrought as God and man, even as the Apostle writeth: God was in Christ reconciling the world to him self, 2. Cor. 5. ver. 19. That he might be a priest therefore able and worthy to make atonement with God, he was God: that his reconciliation and satisfaction might extend to men, he was man: and so being God and man he is • perfect mediator between God and man, and an high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

All this notwithstanding, they oppose against us the authority of the fathers, who doubtless had no other meaning, than we to keep this distinction. First Augustine in Psal. 109. is produced to say: that▪ as he was man he was priest: as God he has not priest. But Augustine's words are somewhat otherwise upon the text, Iurauit Dominus, &c.

In these words Augustine's meaning is plain enough that Christ according to his divine and eternal generation, could not have been a priest for us, except he had taken our flesh and been borne a man, which we do always confess. But that our redemption by his sacrifice was the mere work of his manhood only, he saith not but the contrary if he be marked. For he saith that the son of God was a priest, for the flesh which he took of us, that he might offer for us that sacrifice which he took of us. Here it is plain that Christ as God offereth sacrifice, but he offereth as a priest, for to offer sacrifice pertaineth to a priest, therefore Christ as God, is a priest: yet not as God only, but as God and man. Whereupon the same Augustine saith afterward: O domine qui i • rasti, &c.

Here he affirmeth, that the eternal God David's Lord, as he was God, David's son as he was man, is that eternal priest. And to what ende? but to perform those partes of a priest, which were proper to God, that is to reconcile us unto God, to have authority of himself and of his own nature and worthiness, to come before God, and to remain in the favor of God always, which no creature hath but through his worthiness and gracious gift.

The next authority brought against us is Theodoret in Psal. 109. who is cited thus: As man he did offer sacrifice, but as God he did receive sacrifices: verily, we say as much and more also, that he offered sacrifice as God also reconciling the world to himself.

and the church truly doth offer the tokens of his body and blood sanctifying every leaven by the first fruits. In these words Theodoret speaketh not of the sacrifice that Christ offered himself, but of the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving which the church offereth to him in celebrating the memory of his death. Not of the priesthood which Christ did exercise in earth, but of the priesthood that he doth exercise in heaven, not now offering anything, but as God receiving oblations. And where he saith that now he exerciseth the priesthood as man, he denieth not but that he doeth exercise it as mediator, God and man. Which is more plain in his exposition of the Epistle to the Heb. cap. 8. where he inquireth how Christ doth both sit at the right hand of majesty, and yet is a minister of the holy things.

Neither hath he any other meaning: Dialog. prime, where his purpose is to prove, that Christ had a body. Si est ergo sacerdonum proprium, offerre munera,

whereas the excellency of his person being both God and man, caused • is sacrifice to be acceptable, and available for the redemption of man. But to make the matter clear, beside that which the Apostle writeth to the Hebrews ca. 9. these arguments may plainly be drawn out of the 7. cap. where he speaketh expressly of his priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

Christ as he is without father and without mother is • priest after the order of Melchizedek:

Christ as he is God and man is without father and without mother, therefore Christ as he is God and man is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Again, Christ as he hath no beginning of his days nor ende of his life, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek:

Christ according to his divinity hath no beginning of his days nor ende of his life according to his whole person:

Therefore Christ according to his divinity and according to his whole person is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Again, except you understand Christ to have been a priest according to his divinity, he was tythed in the loins of Abraham as well as Lcui, but according to his divinity he was not in the loins of Abraham, and therefore paid no tythe in Abraham as God, though as man he was subject to the law, but received tithes of Abraham in his priest and figure Melchizedek. For the priest receiveth tithes in the name of God, as also he blesseth in the name of God. Therefore if Christ give priestly blessing in his own name, he giveth it as he is God and not as man only. Finally to say, that that Christ was a priest only in respect of his manhood, • auoreth rankly of Nestorianisme, whereas our assertion that Christ is an high priest both according to his deity, in which he is equal with his father, and also according to his humanity, in which the father is greter than he, is as far from Arianism, as the Papists are from honesty and sincerity, to charge us with such open blasphemy.

Imprinted at London by George Bishop, and Henry Binneman.

1583.