Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 6

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 1 · Chapter 6

p. 14CAP. VI.

An aunswere first to all the foresaide errors, wherewith he Bristowehath charged the Church of the first 600. yeares: and afterwarde like…ise to all errors, that he layeth to the Church of these late… yeares.

Hetherto we had nothing in a manner, but a rehersall p. 15Fulke.of such matters as hee affirmeth to be confessed by me, nowe he promiseth to proue, that notwithstanding any thing I obiecte, the Church hath neuer erred, and moreouer, that it can neuer erre. How well he performeth his promise, we shall see by considering his aunsweres and arguments.

Fulkes zeale in aunswering for Caluin, and others being in Bristowe.deede of his Church.

First he chargeth me to holde, that our Church at Fulke.this present, doth not erre, and that I neuer say so much, as plainely, that it may erre. In deede I am throughly perswaded, that our Church in matters necessary to saluation, doth not erre. But when I say plainely, that not onelyonly eueryevery particular Church, but euen the whole Catholike Church on earth of eueryevery age, may erre in matters not necessarie to saluation, what an impudent creature is this, to affirme, that I neuer say plainely, that our Church may erre? He that saith plainly, eueryevery man … a lyer, doth he not say plainely that both Fulke and Bristowe are lyers? But my zeale for Caluin is wonderfull great, in his opinion, for I say he erreth not, but the fathers, and the whole Church hauehave erred. A man were as good to reason with a poste, as with such a sensles Papist: I say Caluin erreth not in such pointes, as hee is slaundered of by Allen, therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and crie out as loude as I can, eueryevery man erreth: and yet in Bristowes eares I say Caluin erreth not. The like zeale I shewe for Maister Iewel, whose learned labours I commende to the iudgement of the world. And yet he hath quit himselfe so well (saith Bristowe) that the very reading of his aunswere, hath turned many earnest Protestants, into earnest Catholikes, as both by the numbers, and by the noblenesse of the persons is notoriously knowne. I thinke the number and the nobilitie of the conuerts is all alike. There runneth such a tale of Copley, the great barron of Haie, created by the Spanish, I wot not howe, Lorde of the Maze, an auncient rotten house in Southwarke, p. 16that he shoulde be so conuerted, if some popish treason discouered caused him not to faine such a souden and straunge conuersion. But yet Bristowe cannot abide, that I should exhort English papists, to reade that booke, and pray to God for direction in the trueth. No sir (saith he) that is not the way to trueth, no more then to swallowe poyson and pray, is the way to get or keepe health of bodie. Alas poore Bristowe, hast thou so soone forgot, y^t which thou saidst immediatly before, that Iewels booke is such a soueraigne antidote, that hath expelled the poyson of Protestants from so many and so noble personages, and made them so earnest Catholikes, that thou nowe wouldest hauehave them fly from it, as from a poyson? We see thy wittie pollicie, it is not the way to trueth (thou sayest) to reade our aunsweres: but it is the way to continue mē in error, to suffer them to see nothing but that you say your selues. A sure way to winne credit, but yet with fooles onelyonly: For hee that dare not let his aduersaries aunswere bee seene, sheweth plainely that hee dare not abide the tryall, but requireth all men to beleeue him vppon his bare worde. Where you say, I should rather exhort men to reade y^e auncient writers, I aunswere, that is needelesse, for such whom I exhort to reade maister Iewels replie, namely such as cannot wade well out of these controuersies without such conference, as they may see betweene maister Harding, and maister Iewell.

The first part concerning the errors that he layd (ap. 3. par. 2.) both to the fathers, and to vsus, and first of the crosse and images.Bristowe.

First, where I charge them, that the estimation of the signe or figure of the crosse was taken of the Valentinians, Fulke.that the reader may wonder at my audacitie, he saith, Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speake not a worde of the figure, nor signe, nor vse of the crosse, but tell that those heretikes inuented 30. gods called Aeones, and in them two or 3. Christes, and one of the Christs, they called Crux, &c. what say you Bristowe, speake they not a p. 17worde, either of the figure, signe, or vse of the crosse? I coulde referre you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus, where he telleth that they call the Zodiak (whose mouing is ouerthwart the first mouing of heauen) an image of the crosse. And when they both tell you, that the crosse among the Valentinians, had a double vse of confirmation and separation, speake they not a worde of the vse of the crosse? No (say you) they inuented 30 gods called Aeones, and among them diuerse Christs, wherof the crosse was one. It is a shame to lye on the diuell. The Valentinians did not call their Aeones goddes, but emissions of the first great inuisible & infinite Acone. Neither was the crosse, any of those 30. Aeones, ages, or worldes. For they are all thirtie named in Irenaeus, before he cometh to the crosse: videlicet 8. of the first emission, tenne of the seconde; and twelue of the thirde. Neither did they call the crosse Christ, but the vertue of Christ, confirmatiue & separatiue, such as healed y^e woman of the bloudie issue. VntoUnto which they gaue diuerse names, calling it in a manner as you papists doe, the redeemer, the sauior, the sanctifier, the apoynter of the bounds, the bringer vntounto further matters, the most perfect ende or termination, &c. But all this while, you wil say there is no mention of the figure of the crosse, but of a fained mysterie or imagination. Then you must vnderstand, that of these imagined mysteries, they affirmed there were sensible and materiall thinges in the world, made to be similitudes and images: Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the crosse y^t Christ suffered vponupon, and all other crosses made to the similitude of it, of which S. Paul by their fantasie shoulde say, God forbidde that I should reioyce but in the crosse of Christ, &c. whose figures that they vsed in their consecration and baptizing, it may appeare in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the crosse be not named, yet their termes of redemption, confirmation & diuision which they vsed, in powring on of water, annoynting them, doe infinyate, that they vsed some signes of the crosse to whome they gaue those titles, as before is shewed. Finally when it is certein p. 18by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those similitudes and images in materiall thinges, were made vntounto the honour of their inuisible and spirituall phantasies, there is no doubt but they had in great price the materiall image or signe of the crosse, for reuerence of that high mysterie whereof they dreamed the same to be an image or similitude.

Concerning the images of Iesus, which the Carpocratians and other like heretikes made, and worshipped, Bristow sayth, it toucheth not the papistes, because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers, like as the Samaritans ioyned the worshipping of false Gods, with the worshipping of our Lorde. If I shoulde obiect vntounto you, the worshipping of the images of saint Sonday, saint Hardhuffe, saint Vncomber, yea saint Christopher, and saint George on horseback, which al were meere Idolls after your owne diffinition of Idols, I wote not howe you coulde quite your selfe, from the case of the Samaritanes. But Irenaeus and Epiphanius charge the heretikes, not onelyonly for ioyning the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of Iesus, but also for fayning the Image of Iesus, and worshipping it. Irenaeus againste Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutly, Viuntur autem & imaginibus & incātationibus, & invocationibus &c. They vse images, and inchauntmentes, & inuocations and all the rest of superstitions. Here he placeth the vse of images with inchauntementes, inuocation of spirites, and other superstitions of magike, and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith, Etiam imagines quasdam &c. Also they hauehave certayne images painted, and some made of other matter, saying that the forme of Christ was made by Pilate, in y^t time which Iesus was with men. If it had not beene a faulte to hauehave had these counterfete images, Irenaeus woulde not hauehave ioyned it amonge other hereticall practises of the Carpocratians. The like sayth Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes, Haere. 24 Habent imagines &c. They hauehave images paynted in coulers, some also hauehave them of p. 19golde and siluer and other matter, which they say, are the images of Iesus, and that these images of Iesus were made vnderunder Pontius Pilate, when he was conuersant amongest men. And these images they hauehave closely. Moreouer they hauehave the images of certaine Philosophers &c. Who seeth not by this context, that Epiphanius accompted it hereticall, to hauehave such images in any vse of religion, although they had not made any other images of philosophers besides? Also against the Collyridians, which with certayne cakes offering as the Papistes doe candles, worshipped the image of the virgin Marie: he asketh, what this desire of making images can be, else, but a deuilish enterprise? yet the Collyridians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the virgin Marie. Neither doeth hee simply charge them that they worshipped her, as a God, but siue velut ipsam, &c. Whether these foolish women offer this cake to her, as worshipping Marie her selfe: or whether they go about to offer the saide stincking offering for her, the whole matter is folishe and straunge, and a fraude and deceite of the motion of diuelles. Therefore that I extende my speech no longer, let that which hath beene sayde, suffice. Let Marie be in honor, let the Lord be worshipped. And what thinke you, woulde he hauehave iudged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women, to the images of the virgin Marie, which coulde not abyde to see a vaile in which was painted the image of Christ, or some sainct, hanging in a Church of Christians, but rent it in peeces, at Anablatha? Epiph. Epist. ad Ioan, Hieron. But for the defence of Images: Bristowe referreth the reader to Sanders booke of Images: and I likewise to my confutation of the same. In the meane time, it is a small matter, that Bristowe vrgeth my confession, that crossing at eueryevery step, (which is, saith he, a making and great religion of Images) is referred by Tertullian vntounto tradition of the Apostles, seeing that is shewed to hauehave a later and corrupter beginning, and other fables beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolike tradition.

p. 202 Of inuocation of sainctes, and worshipping of their reliques.Bristowe.

You remember since the 3. chapter (sayth Bristow) by your owne report that the true Church counted Vigilantius Fulke.an heretike for denying the inuocation of Sainctes, and the worshipping of their reliques. I aunswere, y^t I remember no such matter, neither do I finde any where, that Vigilantius was publikely condemned for an heretike, in his time, but onelyonly in the priuate iudgement of Hierome, although Bernardus long after account him litle better. But of worshipping the reliques of Sainctes, and of their images, the case (say you) is all one: then by Hieromes iudgement, neither of both is to be worshipped. For wee worship not, sayth he, the reliques of Martyrs, no nor the sunne and Moone, no not Angelles and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim &c: But we honor the reliques of the martyrs, that wee may worshippe him whose witnesses the martyrs are. By which saying, and other to the same effecte, it is manifest, that although Hierome defended some honoring, or moderat reuerēce of reliques, yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them, and much more of their images. Where I say, the superstition of reliques is receiued of the Ossenes: Bristowe sayth it perteyneth not to them, because the Ossenes worshipped them for Gods, whose reliques they had in such, estimation. But that is false: for they helde Marthys and Marthana for Sainctes, proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they neuer worshipped, but as a great Prophet and teacher, although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur, they were worshipped as Gods: meaning that worship which is proper vntounto God onelyonly, was giuen to them, as it is of Papistes vntounto sainctes, whome they worship as God, geuing that worshipp vntounto them, which is proper onelyonly vntounto God, as faith & inuocation. But Bristow would hauehave the snottie cloutes of Thomas Becket, that were worshipped after his death, to bee all p. 21one with the napkins and partletts, that were caried frō the bodie of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out vncleane spirites, when hee liued: which napkins and partletts, yet he cannot proue either, that they were euer worshipped, or that they were reserued for reliques, after the worke of miracles was wrought by them. As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh, against the Pagans, of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr, which he would hauehave me to applie to my disease, was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie, not to the setting vp or mainteyning thereof. And what worshippe I pray you, was giuen to the reliques of Babylas? If God shewed miracles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne, as by the bones of Elizeus, yet it followeth not, that his body or ashes, were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were.

Concerning inuocation of Angels, which they hauehave common with the Caianes, Bristowe sheweth, that the Caianes had other greater heresies, which the papistes holde not, as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser.

The superstition of Angels, that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians, and Collossians to beware of, hee sayth, they be cleare of it, because in all their prayers, they conclude per Christum &c. Through Christ our Lorde: as though they that taught the superstition of Angels, did cleane exclude Christ, or that it was to be doubted, lest the Ephesians and Collosians, would forsake Christ, and cleaue to Angels, but rather lest with the religion of Christ, as the cheefe, they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels, whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati, bowed downe in y^e worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith, which therefore helde not the heade, because they worshipped not him alone, but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie. That Angels are ministring spirits, it proueth not, that therefore they must be prayed vntounto, but the contrarie, for inuocation is due onelyonly to him on whome wee beleeue, which is God onelyonly. So much the more blasphemous p. 22is Bristowe, that chargeth Saint Iohn, Apoc. 1. to hauehave prayed to the Angels, where he sayth, Grace and peace bee to you from him, that is, and was, and is to come: and from the 7. spirites, that are before his throne, and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all auncient writers is, that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost, which is seuen folde in his graces, according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him, the spirite of wisedome and vnderstanding, the spirite of counsell and power, &c. And it is also euident, that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision, according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God according to the number of seuen Churches of Asia, to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation, for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde. Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels, as some late writers do, yet it followeth not, that S. Iohn shoulde pray vntounto them, in those wordes, but rather to God for their ministerie to the preseruation of the Churches: No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vntounto them from heauen, it followeth that he prayeth vntounto heauen. That phrase is often in the Psalmes, wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion, from the holy Hill, from the Temple, from heauen: and yet no man was so madde to say, that prayers was made to Sion, to the Hill, to the Temple, to heauen. And yet it is more monstrous, that hee chargeth me to forget, that in the same booke of the Apocalips, God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come, and to adore before the feete of one Angell. And they shall know that I hauehave loued thee &c. I speak vntounto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it. Wast thou awake when thou didest p…ruse this argument, and allowed it? Tell me by thy credite, is this the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia, of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood, for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose p. 23worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this controuersie? Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen? is any of those Angels neither whote nor colde in the seruice of God? hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade? hath any of them left his first louelove? doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach &c? Out vponupon thine impudence, if thou affirme all this, and fie vponupon thy negligence, if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument, if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest. As for thee Bristowe, it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master reproued for thy fault at this time, to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast, that darest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of y^e holy scripture, against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of.

3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate, and from marriage.Bristowe.

Bristow would hauehave the question of prescript fasting Fulke.dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one, as they are accompted among the Papistes. But there is great difference. For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes appointed by the church to be obserued, did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster, teach abstinence from flesh. Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse, that the Papists hauehave the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes, common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche. For on their prescript fasting dayes (except for necessitie) they did eate neither fish nor flesh, nor any thing vntill the euening. As for the abstinence from meates, against which Iouinian did teach, was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues, not onelyonly from fleshe, but also from fish and wine also, as appeareth by Hieronyme, con. Iouin. lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces, &c. Neither say we this (sayth Hieronyme) that we deny fishes and the rest of meates, if a mans will may be taken in meate, but as wee preferre virginitie before p. 24marriage, so fasting and the spirite, before fulnesse & flesh. Likewise, in diuers places, he speaketh of the abstinence from wine. Furthermore, he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say, the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie, from the Tatianistes, Manichees; & Montanistes. If I brought no proofe in that place, it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe, what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius, lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting. And that the Manichees in their electes, and the Tatianistes in their perfectes, allowed not marriage, out of Epiphanius & Augustine. But where I charge the Papistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh, Bristowe sayeth, I take Richard for Robert, because the Aerians abstained from fleshe, as the Manichees, Tatianistes, & Montanistes, as perteining to the yll god, according to the heresie of the Valentinians. Admit it were so, yet how cā either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues of the doctrine of diuels and spirite of errour, whose fruite is forbidding of marrying & eating of meates, 1. Tim. 4. which is hereticall and abhominable, for what cause of religion so euer it be? And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisie, it is more probable that he speaketh against y^e Papists, than against those open blasphemers. But howe proueth Bristowe, that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites? Forsooth, because Augustine sayeth: Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas, non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes, & eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint, vt propria nulla possideant, ab es…a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius: Philaster verò & hanc eis tribuit abstinentiam: Some say, that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their societie, but onelyonly such as conteine from marriage, and hauehave so renounced the world, that they possesse no proper goods, yet Epiphanius sayeth not, that they abstain from eating of flesh: but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence.

p. 25The similitude (which Bristowe by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his wordes) would hauehave to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites, is onelyonly in the abstinence from marriage and meates, and possessions, not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained. For seeing Aerius was an Arrian, he could not hold the pluralitie of Gods. For the Arrians so held the vnitie of the godhead, that they denyed the Trinitie of the persons in equall substance. And although he were the scholer of Eustachius, yet it followeth not y^t he held all pointes as his maister did. Augustine chargeth him to hauehave added these matters of his owne. Beside that, diuerse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists, concerning the marriage of priestes, and the abstinence from meates, howsoeuer the papistes will not seeme to be so boysterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdome of heauen to them that marry, and hope to them that eate fleshe: yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write, that they which be marryed be in the flesh, and cannot please God: Ep. ad Him. Tarrat. And what a daungerous matter the Papistes count it, to eate flesh in tymes by them prohibited, all the world doth know.

4 Of Ceremonies, and Liturgies.Bristowe.

The church is S. Augustines times approued vnprofitable Fulke.and hurtfull vsages, because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad Ianuar. 118. and wisheth, that they might be abrogated so soone as occasion serued. Bristowe quarreling, that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission: answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth, Tamen ecclesia, &c. Yet the church of God approueth not any thing that is against the faith, or against good life. And I reply notwithstanding, y^t they may be vnprofitable and hurtfull vsages. For so the same Augustine writeth in thesame Epistle. Quamuis enim, &c. For although neither this can be founde, howe they are against the faith, yet they oppresse the religion it selfe with seruile burdens, which p. 26the merciemercy of God would hauehave to be free with moste fewe and manifest sacraments of celebrations, so that the condition of the Iewes is more tollerable, which although they hauehave not knowen the time of libertie, yet they are subiect to lawfull burthens, & not to humaine presumptions. But Bristowe proceedeth and vrgeth an other saying of Augustine, that if the whole church vse any thing, it is a point of most insolent madnesse to call in question, whether that should be so vsed. I answere, wee speake of approuing of vsages, not of any thing that is generally vsed. The church is S. Augustines time, approued diuerse vnprofitable vsages by secrete consent, without open abrogation, which yet were diuerse in diuerse places.

Where I proue they were vnprofitable by this reason, that many of them are abrogated, he answereth, that is no good argument, for there might be good cause to abrogate them, although they came of the tradition of the Apostles: as y^e decree of not eating blood nor strangled, Act. 15. and the custome of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to praye and prophesie bareheaded. To the former decree I reply, that it was temporall, and not meant by the makers to be eternall, but to beare with the infirmitie of the Iewes for a time. To the other custome of praying or preaching bareheaded, whatsoeuer the pompous doctors of the popish church obserue, I saye it is perpetually to be obserued for the distinction of the man and woman in couering and vncouering of the head, and the obseruing of naturall comlinesse in both, although for necessitie of health a nightcap, kercheffe or such like couering, according to the custome of the country, be not absolutely prohibited. As for y^e forbidding of solemne fastes and genuflections on sundayes, which Bristowe sayeth was ordeined by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection, and more straitly obserued of the church against the Manichees, which might be abrogated, nowe that article is receiued and the heresie extinct is but a dreame of his owne head without proofe, & so p. 27…et it passe, although I knowe not what he meaneth to say, that forbidding of solemne kneeling is still obserued: for the papistes kneele as solemnely on sundayes as on other dayes. As for the libertie the church hath in altering of ceremonies, is neuer denied of me: but fondly alledged of him, which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be obserued, as commaundements of the scripture, referring eueryevery blynde ceremonie, whereof he knoweth none author, to tradition of the Apostles.

Nowe concerning the Liturgies, he sayth, Proclus answereth why Basil & Chrysostome changed the auncient Liturgies that were before them: he sayth, forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgie of S. Iames, which was too lōg for the peoples cold deuotion. But his reason will soone proue all the three Liturgies that nowe are called by the names of S. Iames, Basil, and Chrysostome, to be counterfeits, for ther is small difference in the length of them, and in a manner none at all. As for the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo, doth in deede name the Lyturgies of S. Iames, Basil, & Chrysostome, but that proueth not these which we hauehave at this day, to be the same, seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary, as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth vnderunder the name of Iames and of Alexius the Emperour, & Nicholas the bishop, in Chrysostome, which were not borne many hundreth yeares after his death. But that prayers for the dead, were vsed in y^e ancient Liturgies, that were before Chrysostomes tyme, Bristowe sayeth he hath proued by plaine demonstration, Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostome cited by me, in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra, &c. It hath not been in vaine decreed by the Apostles, that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, memorie should be made of them that are hence departed, &c. This saying proueth a remembrance, but not a prayer, neuerthelesse of this remembrance vsed in the elder times, they gathered prayers to be profitable. But more clearely, that it was a remembrance p. 28without prayers, it appeareth by Epiphanius, which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners, and for the righteous of all sortes to be a distinction of them from our sauiour Christ, cont. Aer. ser. 75.

5 Of sacrifice: and for the deade.Bristowe.

The name of sacrifice, which the fathers vsed commō ly for the celebration of the Lords supper, they tooke of Fulke.the Gentiles, you might adde and of the Iewes also, for that somewhere I doe affirme. But howe proue you, they had it of the scriptures? Because Christ saide not this is I, that was borne of the virgin, but this is my body, this is my bloude. The Apostle saith not of him that eateth vnworthely, that he is guiltie of Christ, but he is guilty of the bodie and bloude of Christ. Why Bristowe, doest thou dreame? we speake of the name of sacrifice, whether it bee vsed in scripture for the celebration of the Lordes supper. But if I knewe (saith he) what is the sacrifice of a liue thing, I shoulde see that Christ is heere as properly sacrificed in a mysticall manner, as he was properly sacrificed on the crosse in an open manner. Syr I knowe what S. Paul meaneth, when hee exhorteth vsus to offer vp our bodies a liuing sacrifice, Rom 12. & yet I am neuer the neere to vnderstand, your mystical sacrifice of a very bodie, vnderunder the mysterie of shape and colour of breade.

Also as blinde as you make me, I see the Altar, Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate, so long as they remaine in Iudaisme, but that sacrifice is the death of Christ, whereof none that continue in obseruation of the Leuiticall Lawe can be partakers. As for the table of the Lorde, and the table of diuels, in one forme of speach, 1. Cor. 10. proueth no sacrifice of the Lordes table, opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentils, but the feast of the Lordes table, contrarie to the feast of the idoll offerings, whereof the controuersie was, and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentils. For if hee p. 29had ment of the sacrifices of both, he woulde hauehave na…ed the altar of the Lorde and the altar of diuels. For … alter is proper for a sacrifice, as a table for a feast or …past. So that yet I stande to mine olde assertion, I can…ot finde one worde or one syllable in the scripture, of …ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper, But …ontrariwise I finde in the scripture, that he offered on…y one sacrifice propitiatorie, and that but once vponupon the …rosse: Heb. 9. & 10.

Purgatorie.

Where I shewe out of Tertullian de anima, cap. de recep…u, that the opinion of Purgatorie after this life came first from the hethen philosophers as most notable heresies did, seing all philosophers that graunted the immortalitie of the soule, as Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, assigned three places for the soules departed, Heauen, hell, and a thirde place of purifying. This argument (saith Bristowe) proueth as wel, that heauen, hel, & …he immortalitie of the soule, had their originall of the …hilosophers. He is a perillous Logician that can so cō …ude. For heauen, hel, and the immortalitie of the soule, …re founde in the scriptures, which are before all philosophers, but of the thirde place of purifying, we may say as Augustine doth, contra Pelag. hypognost. lib. 5. Tertium pe…itus ignoramus. The thirde place we know not at al, neither doe we finde it in the holy scriptures. But if I would reporte the trueth (Bristowe saith) there is no worde of any thirde place of purifying, but that those philosophers, made onelyonly two sorts of receptacles. But if I find three and the third a place of purifying, what shall we thinke of Bristowes trueth? First hee graunteth supernas mansiones, the high mansions for the soules of the Philosophers and wise men onelyonly: secondly Inferos, hell, or the lowe places, whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt, the rest of the soules they cast downe into hell: 3. What say you Bristowe, al the soules except Philosophers soules? Could you not see betweene them, imprudentes animas, the foolish soules, remayning (according p. 30to the Stoikes) about the earth, which shoulde bee instructed of the wise soules. What was this, but a third place, and a place of purifying? But if you woulde hauehave your purgatorie more plainely described, you may resort to Virgil, Aeneid. 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras, rehearseth howe the soules of good men are purged: Quin & supremo cum lumine vita reliquit, &c. After this life hath left them (saith he) yet is not all euill, nor all the infections of the bodie departed frō them, and it is necessarie that such things as hauehave beene long gathered together, shoulde by meruailous meanes be done away. Therefore they are exercised with paines, and suffer the punishment of their auncient euills: some soules, are hanged vp against the voyde windes, to some their sinne remayning, is washed away vnderunder great raging waters, or burned vp with fire. EueryEvery one of vsus suffer our punishments, and then being but fewe wee are sent into the ioyfull Elysian fieldes &c.

Nowe concerning the three kindes of Purgatorie, which I saide that Carpocrates the heretike inuented, & proued by the payment of the vttermost farthing, as the papists doe theirs: Bristow saith, by this argument, I wil winne much honestie, bicause the purgatorie that Carpocrates inuented, was a wallowing in all sinfull operation &c. What is that to mine honestie? I saide he inuented a kinde of purgatorie, and Bristowe saith it was an absurde kinde of purgatorie. I said he proued his purgatorie as the papists doe theirs, but to that Bristowe aunswereth neuer a worde. But this is small honestie, for Bristow, that such things as are ioyned together by me, to shewe by what degrees popishe purgatorie came to perfection, they are seuered by him, as though I ment to charge the Papistes by such argumentes, to confute their purgatorie.

Purgatorie fire.

I said that purgatorie fire was taken of the Originists. For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason p. 31out of 1. Cor. 3. for all soules, then the papistes doe …r some soules: and the name of purgatorie fire, began …bout Augustines time by some Mediators that would …ccorde Origens error, which was of purging all soules, …ith the erronius practise of praying for the deade, out …f which, they gathered the purging of some soules. That I say of Origen, although Bristowe confesse it to …e true in effect, yet he saith I speake it without proofe. My proofe is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contem…imus &c. But if in this life we contemne y^e words of the diuine scripture admonishing vsus, and will not be healed or reformed by the reprehensions thereof, it is certaine that fire abideth vsus which is prepared for sinners, and we shal come vntounto y^t fire, in which of what sort eueryevery mans work is, y^e fire shall trie. And (as I thinke) it is of necessitie that wee must all come vntounto that fire. Although one be Paul or Peter, yet he commeth to y^t fire. But they that are such do heare. Although thou passe through fire, y^e flame …hal not burn thee. But if any be a sinner like me, he shal …ome in deede vntounto y^t fire as Peter & Paul, but he shall …ot so passe through it as Peter & Paul. More of his ge…eral purgation of al men, and not y^e damned onelyonly, you …ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo, &c. Thou se…st howe eueryevery man that departeth out of the battel of this life, hath neede of purification, &c. yet saith Bristow, that of the purgation of such as die in gods fauour, there is no word, which although he speak of Augustin whose wordes he citeth Ad quod vult. Hae. 43. yet he saith vntruely, for thus he writeth in the same place: Sunt & alia, &c. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholike Church doth not receiue at all, in which it doth not falsely accuse him, neither can be so excused by his defenders especially: cōcerning purgation & deliuerāce: and againe after long time the reuolution vntounto y^e same euils of eueryevery reasonable creature. I suppose he y^t speaketh of the purgation of eueryevery reasonable creature, speaketh of the purgation of such as die in Gods fauour also, wherefore it is manifest, that Origen erred not only about hell & heauen, and the purgation of the damned, p. 32but also about the purgation of such as dye in Gods fauour. Therefore Bristowe neede not gather mine argument, as he doth in scorne. There is no such Purgatorie as Origen & Carpocrates would hauehave, therefore there is no purgatorie at all. But what should Carpocrates come in this title? but for a sorie sophisme, whē we speake of Origen onelyonly. Wherefore if you wil giuegive mee leaue to frame mine argument (although I meant not an argument out of Origens purging fire onelyonly) it should be thus: There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that dye in Gods fauour: such as Origens fire, is the fire that the papistes would hauehave: therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists woulde hauehave.

Releeuing of the dead by prayer.

If the dead be not releeued, we say (quod Bristowe as S. Paul saith) they must indure a fierie and therefore a most painefull purgation. And for this saying, hee quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristowe, where saith S. Paul the deade must endure a fierie purgation, or where maketh he any exception of their releeuing? Hee saith the fire shall trie eueryevery mans worke. Is eueryevery man onelyonly some kinde of deade men? or is euerie mans worke the man him selfe? or is the triall of euerie mans worke of what sort it is, a purgation either of the man or of the worke? Arte thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that, whereof hee saith nothing at all? euen by the iudgement of S. Augustine. But that Aerius was not the first that denyed prayers for the dead to be profitable, I shewed by that of the most auncient writers. The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to burye their dead w^t inuocations, and to redeem them with oyle, balme and water, and inuocations said ouer their heades, as Augustine and Epiphanius shewe out of Irenaeus. Nowe commeth Bristowe, and in many needelesse words, rehearseth other partes of their heresie, with their manner of p. 33seasoning or receiuing those that beleeue in them, by a counterfait marriage and baptisme, and by anoynting with balme, &c. concluding that this practise of theirs, maketh as much against true baptisme & solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead, anealing, or anoynting, &c. Likewise might they conclude, that all their ceremonies are as good as baptisme and marriage. But whatsoeuer wee reade of the practise of heretikes, we must learne to distinguish that which is their owne inuention, from that which is the ordinance of God. And how shall wee knowe Gods ordinance from heretikes inuention, but by the holy scriptures? Separating therefore baptisme and marrying, which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures, from the rest that hauehave no ground in the same, prayers for the dead which they vsed with such like matters, were the inuention of heretikes. Howbeit (saith Bristowe) of prayer for the dead in all this was neuer a worde. No was? Howe read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much & could not see, that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples aliue, he telleth how they redeeme them when they are dead: Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt, &c. Other there be, that redeeme the dead at the end of their departing, powring on their heads oyle & water, or the foresaid oyntment, with water, and with the foresaid inuocations &c? Do you not heare the same prayers sayde by the heretikes for the dead, which they vttered before for the liuing?

But if the Heracleonites should faile mee, I affirme that Montanus had in all pointes the opinion of y^e Papistes, because Tertullian a Montanist vttereth al those pointes in such bookes as he made being a Montanist, and especially in his booke de anima. That Terrullian vttereth the opinion of the Papistes in all pointes, Bristow wil not denye: But he asketh, whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his booke de anima, and in so many other bookes as he wrote being a Montanist? No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretike helde whatsoeuer he wrote in those bookes. Howe p. 34then shall we discerne that which is proper to Montanus, from that which he hath common with the catholike church? I deliuered a rule euen nowe, concerning the practise of the Heracleonites. Prayer for the dead and Purgatorie are not found in the holy Scriptures, but they are found in a disciple of Montanus, therfore they stinke of Montanisme. Adde hereunto that in so many bookes as Tertullian did write being a catholike, there is no mention of prayer for the dead, or suffering after this life of the faithfull. Last of all, Tertullian him selfe telleth you plainly, that Paracletus, the comforter (by which he meant the spirite of Montanus) had reuealed very often, that eueryevery small offence must be punished after this life, in that the soule of any except martyrs, shall not go immediatly into Paradise, but tarie in prison vntil it hauehave payde the vttermost farthing. What needed he to cite the authoritie of his Paracletus, if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly receiued in the catholike Church? Which saying, sith I hauehave set downe in Tertullians wordes in the page of Purg. 417. by you quoted, you needed not to hauehave made a question, whether this opiniō were Montanisme or no. But when you can saye nothing against this assertion your selfe, you would make me vncertein of it, and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine, because in one place, before I come to the found proofe of it, I say it is a probable coniecture. And doeth it followe therefore, that I doubt of it, because I offer a probable coniecture to other mens vnderstanding, before by order of the discourse, I am brought to the manifest probation of it? The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulnesse, shewe your ordinarie manner of collections. And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes added prayers for the spirites of them that were dead, &c. Purg. 417. What vncerteintie is of that matter, whereof it is not otherwise to be thought? Againe: Finally, it appeareth, that the faithfull in Tertullians time allowed no prayers for the dead. Pur. 419. Call you that doubtfull which appeareth by plaine demonstration p. 35before, pag. 417?

But for all your fine frumpe in the margent (all in Tertulian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not mention) it is a probable coniecture, that prayer for y^e dead, whereof Tertullian speaketh, was vsed onelyonly in the conuenticles of Montanistes, because Cyprian which long after liued in Carthage, in all his workes, maketh no mention of prayers for the dead. But I weene Cyprian maketh expresse mention of prayers for the dead, by my confession, as Bristowe would hauehave men thinke, because I saye, of one place alledged by Allen, that it hath some couler for Purgatorie, which by flowe of arguments I easely washe of, that I neede not sticke in the lyme, as Bristowe sayeth I doe: but howe I am fastened therein, he sayeth neuer a worde.

Oblations for the dead.

I sayde that oblations for the dead, although at the first they were but of thankesgiuing, were taken of the Gentiles, as appeareth by Tertulliā, who counteth them of one originall or beginning with oblations for the birth dayes, falsely fathering them vponupon tradition of y^e Apostles, as he doth other vanities in the same place, whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles, as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus, a Papist, affirming, that by the Canons of the Nicen councell and other councels which he had seene in librarijs, they were abrogated and taken away. Bristowe sayeth, he is but a poore antiquarie, which knoweth not, that Natalitia in olde time, were as they nowe are the dayes of Martyrs sufferings: And yet he can name neuer an olde writer iustly, that calleth them natalitia. He nameth in deede Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum: the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs. What print he followeth I knowe not, but my booke hath natalibus and not natalitijs: betweene which wordes there is some difference. As for Martyrologies whether hee p. 36sendeth vsus, I knowe none of such antiquitie, that they may be iudges in this case.

Tullie is a better witnesse what natalitia, being a substantiue, in olde time did signifie, namely, the feasts that were kept for the ioye of mens birthdaye in Ant. Hodie non descendit Antonius. Cur? Dat natalitia in hortis. Antonie commeth not downe to day. Why so? He keepeth the feaste of his birthdaye in his garden. Wherefore Pamelius, as great an antiquarie as you make him, vniustly reproueth Rhenanus, for vnderstanding natalitia in Tertullian, to be feastes of the birthdayes vsed after the example of the Gentiles. The places you cite out of Cyprian, speake neither of natales nor natalitia, but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemoration or remembrance of y^e Martyrs sufferings, which could be none other but sacrifices of thankesgiuing, according to your owne doctrine. Wherefore you shewe nothing to the contrary, but that Tertullian vsing the worde natalitia, vnderstandeth it for feastes of the birthdaye, and not of the death of Martyrs. And beside the authoritie of Rhenanus and Tully, for the signification of the worde natalitia, I oppose against you these reasons. First, that he addeth not the name of Martyrs, as all they that vse natalitia or natales for the daye of their departure, but sayeth generally, pro natalitijs. Secondly, that he spake immediatly before of oblations pro defunctis, for the dead, which you vnderstande for all faithfull departed out of the worlde: therefore pro natalitijs, signifyeth the oblation for the birth of all Christians come into the worlde. Thirdly, seeing he had before named oblations for the dead, it were absurde to vnderstand pro natalitijs for the dead also, without any more explication. Fourthly, if natalitia should signifie the feastes of the death of Martyrs (as you say,) it will followe also, which I do vrge of the place, that oblations pro defunctis for the dead, were but oblations of thankesgiuing as those for the death of Martyrs, which are conteined in one worde or phrase. As for that you adde out of Origen, in Iob. lib 3. Wee celebrate not p. 37the daye of birth, &c. But the daye of death, sheweth the custome of the Greeke Church, and not of the Latine, and their celebrating of their daye of birth with ioye and thankesgiuing, as the daye of the beginning of felicitie, and ende of all sorrowes vntounto the deade, cleane ouerthroweth your opinion of Purgatorie, and prayer for the dead, as in his time, not yet entred into the Greeke Church. Beside that, he speaketh of the death of all men, and not of Martyrs onelyonly, as you violently would wrest him.

Beeres to carry home the corpses.

He maketh a foolish quarell vppon my saying, that George of Alexandria inuented beeres for lucres sake, as the Papistes their bearing clothes, and other toyes, for funerall pompe. And first he sayeth, that George did not inuent beeres. For Epiphanius sayeth, he deuised to make the number of them certeine, and without those that he ordeined, no corps to be buryed, and all for lucres sake. Ep. H. 76. I neuer thought, that they carryed dead men on their neckes like beastes to the graue before Georges dayes, and therefore they had some kinde of comely carriage for them. But I sayed truely, that George inuented peculiar beeres, for lucres sake, as the Papistes vse their bearing clothes and like stuffe. Secondly he sayeth, I commend such ceremonies as are conuenient for laying vp of the corps. I do so: But superstitious beereclothes, and other ceremonies of poperie, so dearly payde for, are neither needfull nor conuenient.

Againe he asketh, whether I thinke it much, that the Church should reape their carnalia, to whome shee soweth spiritualia? No verily: but I could neuer learn out of the scriptures, that bearing cloathes, crosses, candels, torches, &c. were such spiritualia, as the ministers of the Church ought to sowe. Last of all, where he asketh, whether I would prouide a beere and bearing cloathes against I be buryed, rather then to paye my dueties to p. 38my parish Church, hee declareth, that hee doth wilfully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clothes, as though I denyed any thing that is comelye, when I speake against superstition and couetuousnesse.

The seconde parte concerning the errors that hee layed (cap. 4.) to the fathers and not to vsus. 1. Touching the heresies that Bristowe.were in their times.

He demaundeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies, that were in Fulke.the Apostles times, and the same Church in three Arrian Emperors times, with the heresie of Arrius? I answere that I neuer charged either the Apostles, or the faithfull members of the Church, or the true Church it selfe, with any heresies that were in their times. But aunswering the demaunde Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath alwayes stoode still and stedfast, while all congregations of heretikes hauehave decayed: I say, The true Church of Christ hath alwayes stoode stedfast and inseparable from Christe her heade, when all heretikes hauehave beene and shall bee consounded, although shee hauehave not alwayes florished in worldly peace. For vntill the time of Constantine the great, the Church had small reste: And soone after vnderunder the Emperours Constantius, Constano, and Valens, it was greatly infected with the heresie of Arrius.

Where Bristowe falsifieth my wordes, reporting that I saye, The true Church was infected &c. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that professe Christianitie, as when I saye, the Church was persecuted by the heathen Emperours, I meane all that woulde professe Christianitie, among whiche were manye heretikes that suffered persecution also. Lykewise when I say, the Church was infected, I meane the visible Church, in whiche are alwayes manye hypocrites, according to the parable of the nette and of the tares, &c. yea p. 39I doubt not but many of GODS electe, were infected with that heresie in those times, which afterwarde repented and returned to the knowledge of the trueth: wherfore my meaning was nothing lesse, then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxie and true profession with the heresie of Arrius, or any other which it did openly detest and abhorre.

An other quarel he hath against me, where I saide, Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after y^e Apostles times. In which place, after I had shewed what corruption of doctrine had beene receiued of y^t greatest lights and pillers of the Church, from which it was not like, that most of y^e inferior members could bee free: I conclude according to y^e demand (which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelyhood, whē the true church did decaie?) that it decayed immediately after y^e Apostles times, meaning as y^e demaunde serueth also, to vnderstande the word of decaying, when it began to decay, & not as Bristow cauilleth, whē it was vtterly decaied & came to nothing, for such decaying I vtterly deny, y^t euer it was, or euer shalbe. If we see some principall postes of an house, begin to putrifie, may wee not say, this building doth decaye? Or being asked when it decayed, after it is come to a more ruinous state, and yet standeth, may wee not aunswere, it decayed first, when such a beame or post began to put rifie? I doubt not but eueryevery man of reasonable vnderstanding, wil acknowledge how folish these cauils are, which are taken of ambiguitie of words, and misconstruing of phrases cleane contrarie to my meaning, expressed in plaine euident tearmes, and hundreth times at least, in these my bookes, namely that the Church, although it be persecuted by tyrants, assaulted by heretikes, vndermined by hypocrites, enuyed and maligned by the diuell himselfe, yet the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile against it, to roote it out of the worlde, or to hinder the saluation of any one true member thereof.

p. 40Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, & S. Iustinus.Bristowe.

If these doctors hauehave erred (saith Bristow) in any thing, yet this thing is notable, that not so much as in any one Fulke.of their errors, they are of your side. A notable matter in deede, that we hold not so much as any one error, which they did hold. But you wil not say y^e contrary, for shame, but that we hold many truthes which they helde. We resist (you say) their ful & whole consent. That is vtterly false, you hauehave not their ful & whole consent, for any point of popery: prayer for the deade is y^e oldest error you hauehave, except the superstition of Angels and y^e pharisaicall doctrine of iustification. Shew me the ful & whole consent of al the fathers for it, whose writings are extant, shewe me Iustinus, Irenaeus, Origenes, Cyprianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, or any within 200. yeares after Christ (except Tertullian a Montanist) that in his writings maintaineth prayer for the deade.

But you will tell vsus, whereto you papists ascribe infallible truth: First to the canonical scriptures & tradition of the Apostles, to y^e decrees of Peter & his chayre, to the whole church, to y^e consēt of fathers & councels, both generall and prouincial, confirmed by Peters successor. We know this wel inough, but I doe rehearse it in your owne termes, y^t it may appeare you are not ashamed to match diuerse autorities equal in truth infallible, with the holy scriptures inspired of God, y^t alone are able to instruct a man to saluation, and prepare him to euerie good worke. For these autorities, you vrge not onelyonly where they agree with the scriptures, but also wher you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be vnperfect, as that they hauehave omitted any thing needeful to saluation, or the aduancement of Gods glorie in true religion.

The errors of y^e fathers, we doe not reueale to their dishonour, but to y^e honour of God. Let God onelyonly be true & eueryevery man a lyer, yea Peter & Peters successor a thousand times. Whereas you take vponupon you, to mitigate y^e errors of the fathers, named in the title, you labour in p. 41…e: we know they erred not of malice, but being de…ued with similitude of trueth. But where you say, it …s no great matter for Irenaeus, Papius, and other to …ue erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts, vntill the Church had condemned peraduenture y^t opinion in the heretiks called Mellenaries: you shewe what certeintie of trueth you hauehave out of y^e scriptures, & yet you make it but a peraduenture, that the Church hath condemned that error. Last of all, where you say in excuse of y^e error of Iustinus, concerning angels, that expresse mention is made Gen. 6. of the sinne of y^e Angels, calling the translation of the septuaginta authenticall, which translateth the Angels of God insteede of the sonnes of God, you geue great cause of suspicion that you are not cleare of that error your selfe.

3 Touching second mariages, and S. Hierom.Bristowe.

Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the Fulke.…me of Iustinus, was in some error about second marri…ges and diuorcement: Bristowe is angrie, that I hauehave no more to say: but it seemeth as though he would hauehave me …harge the man or the time with more thā I can manifestly proue. But seing I quote no place for it, he dare say I hauehave it not in the workes of Iustinus himselfe, and counsels mee not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries. As for the Centuries I dare say, I neuer redde fiue leaues of them together, or in partes. But I dare shew to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most auncient writers, my book of notes writtē with mine owne hande, more then 15. yeares past.

The place of Iustinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium, &c. where he hath these wordes: foreign foreign, As they that by mans lawe enter into seconde marriages, are sinners by our maisters iudgement. I knowe the wordes are otherwise interpreted by some, and the sinne not referred to seconde marriages, but to wanton p. 42beholding of women: And therefore I doe not precisely charge Iustinus. And yet againe I say it seemeth, that the Church in his time was in some error, because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher, that liued in a manner in the same time, doth expresly call the seconde marriage speciosum adulterium, a faire kinde of adultery. Qui namque repudiauerit, inquit &c. For hee that shall forsake his wife (saith Christ) and marry another, doth commit adulterie: suffering a man neither by diuorcement to put her away, whose flower of virginitie he hath defiled, nor to goe vntounto seconde marriages. For he that depriueth him selfe of his former wife (although after she is deade a diuorcement is made) is a secrete and couered adulterer, transgressing the hand that is the creature or workemanshippe of God. Because in the beginning hee made one man and one woman, and dissoluing fleshe from flesh, y^e vnion of commixtion instituted for y^e participation of kinde and sexe, &c. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time, because he writeth this in that Apologie, which he made in defence of all Christians, which it is not like he woulde present to the Emperor, in the name of them all, except he had written that, which was the common receiued opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time.

Concerning Hieronyme, Bristowe is angrie also that I say hee was almost falne into Tertullians error, when it is manifest hee was fayne to purge himselfe, not onelye against malicious enuiers, but also towardes Godly Bishoppes, and Christians. Apol. ad Pammachium.

Where as I laye vntounto Hierom, two other perilous Assertions, whereof the one tendeth to destroye the humanitie of Christ, the other to giuegive diuinity to the martyrs, where hee saith, The soules of the martyrs, follow the Lambe whether so euer hee goeth: and thereof concludeth, If the Lambe be eueryevery where, those also that are with the Lambe, must bee beleeued to bee euerie where.

Bristowe aunswereth, that the sainctes are not euerie p. 43…here in personall presence. How then? But of such power …ey be, that they heare their suters in all places at once, and …n be personally present to heale & helpe whom they will. Euen …s the lambe that is Christ according to his humanitie hea…eth his suters in all places, and in personall presence assi…ed Saint Stephen, and whomsoeuer else hee will: I say according also to his humanitie &c. But what say you according to his humanitie, is hee euerie where? that is the question, and not of his power in hearing suters, or helping them. If you will defende the vbiquitie of Christ according to his humanitie, speake plainely, and ioyne with Hieronyme if you dare. If you interprete euerie where for all power, how can you giuegive all power to the soules of Martyrs, which they ascribe onelyonly to GOD and the Lambe? Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute vntounto the soules of Saintes, such power, that they heare the suters in all places at once &c: Let the reader see howe much you ascribe to Christe, that make the sute of euerie saincte equal with him in infinite power of hearing, vnderstanding and helping. For to heare vnderstande and helpe all suters at once, is a diuine priuiledge not communicable to any creature, that is not GOD. The argument therefore of inuocation of sainctes, whiche you acompte to bee so stronge, without horrible blasphemie, against the diuine nature, can neuer bee defended. The Sainctes followe the Lambe, not to bee of diuine nature, or equall power with him, but to bee partakers of his glorie, according to his grace, and the measure and capacitie of nature created.

Touching praying to the Sonne, and to the holy Bristowe.Ghoste.

Being vrged by the Popishe Articles to shewe the Fulke.error of the Church in any thinge, I shewe Pag. 89. of that aunswere, That the Councell of Carthage the 3. p. 44cap. 23. confirmed by a generall councell, which is with the Papistes the Church representatiue, decreed, that the prayers at the altar shoulde bee directed alwayes to the father, which is no small error, seeing that hereof it followeth, that none ought to be directed either to the sonne or to the holy Ghost, or to the blessed Trinitie. What moued those fathers thus to decree, I know not: but certayne it is, the decree is erronius and offensiue. Bristowe cauelleth at my collections, as vnnecessarie, that no prayers may bee directed but to the father, whereas my wordes hauehave relation to such prayers as the councel speaketh off. Also that the verie prayers at the altar, may not be directed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost, because for orders sake, they are appointed to be directed to the father: I say, sauing the authoritie of the councell, which appointeth them to be directed to y^e father alwaies, they may not, otherwise I doubt not but they may. And therefore Bristowe laboreth in vayne, to proue out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum, & Petrum diaconum, that the prayers, although they bee directed to the father, yet are made to the holy Trinitie, especially because of the conclusion, which hath in it the name of the sonne and the holy Ghost. And whereas hee sendeth me to the Canon of his Masse for proofe of the same, I must put him in remembraunce, that in Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, O lambe of GOD which takest away the sinnes of the worlde &c: which is also sayde in his Masse, both the prayers is directed to God the sonne, & yet no conclusion there is, naming the father and the holy Ghost. Let Bristow therefore choose, whether hee will defende the error of the councell of Carthage, or else acknowledge that y^e Romishe Church doth erre, in directing the prayer at the altar to the Sonne, without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost.

5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacramentes to infantes.Bristowe.

p. 45I charge all the Churches in S. Augustines time & In…ocentius Fulke.him selfe Bishoppe of Rome, with this error, …at they did not onelyonly minister the communion to in…ntes, contrary to the doctrin of the Apostle, Let a man …xamine himselfe &c: but also, that they thought it ne…ssarie for them in paine of damnation, to receiue the …ommunion, which error I supposed the papistes them …lues woulde not defend. Heere first Bristowe accu…eth my boldnesse, in that I affirme the Papistes will not …efende this error: and secondly my wilfull ignorance, …hat I neuer redde the councell of Trent, wherein it is …eclared that they doe defend it, with an admonition to his coūtrie men what blind guids they hauehave of me and such as I am &c. Concerning the boldenesse, I desire …ardon of the Papistes, if I thought not so euell of thē …s they deserue: And touching my wilfull ignorance …nd blindnesse, I must needes vse the prouerbe; Who …s so bolde as blinde Bayarde? Bristowe, which so con…tantly affirmeth, that it was not possible for him to …nowe: Fulke neuer redde the councell of Trent, and that i… …tterly false, for as I knowe I hauehave redde it, so suppose … hauehave redd it before Bristowe. But admitte I had ne…er seene, the report of that 5. session vnderunder Pius the 4. which was helde the 16. day of Iuly 1562, are all blinde guides that neuer sawe that session? O waightie censure of a proude papist, whiche by a fault called of the Greekes foreign, thinketh that to bee the highest point of learning, which he hath learned latest! But what if the councell of Trent doe not onelyonly acknowledge it to bee an error, but also doe anathematise all them that holde the contrarie? Then hauehave I not slaundered the Papistes, but Bristowe hath slaundered mee. The verie wordes cited by Bristowe out of the 4. Cap. shewe that the Papistes helde it for an error, that it is necessarie for infantes to receiue the communion: That infantes lacking the vse of reason, are by no necessitie bound to the sacramentall receiuing of the Eucharist. Also the fourth Canon of the same session, thundereth out anathema, against them, that say otherwise. Si p. 46quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem, Anathema sit: If any man shall say, that the communion of the Eucharist, is necessarie for infants, before they come to the yeares of discretion, let him be accursed. But the same councel in the Chapter by Bristow cited, affirmeth, that Antiquitie is not to be condemned, if it practised that maner, sometime, in some places, and that without controuersie it must be beleeued, that they did it not, for anie necessitie of saluation. And this declaration (saith Bristow) may suffice not onelyonly all Catholikes, to whō it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself, but also any other reasonable man. Indeede if any resonable man, wil be satisfied with such a grosse ledging of y^e whole matter in controuersie, it is a good satisfaction. The councel of Trent saith so, therefore although Augustine, Pope Innocentius, & other witnesses of antiquitie say the cō trary, of themselues, yet we must not beleue them. That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of y^e coū cell of Trent, it is a great argument, & such as Bristowe often vseth, that it is no error. Kemnitius if he had beene as quicke eyed as Bernard, yet saw not all things, neither was he bound to confute all errors that he sawe. But for further satisfaction of all men, Bristow will open y^e case particularly, which is this in effect: The Pelagians affirmed, that children without baptisme, should hauehave euerlasting life, although not in the kingdome of God. Wherevnto the Catholikes replied, they could not hauehave eternall life, except they did eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his bloud in the cōmunion: but the communion they could not receiue, before they were baptised, therefore without baptisme, they could not hauehave eternal life. Now Bristowe putting the case, that a childe were baptised, and then immediately dyed before he receyued sacramentally the Eucharist, demandeth, whether the father granting to such a childe by force of baptisme remission of sinnes, do not also allowe him eternall life and the kingdome of God. And let any man (saith he) bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case & holding the p. 47contrarie. I aunswere, seeing they vsed immediately after …aptisme, to communicat the infant, y^e case that Bristow …utteth, is too rare, to happen in 500 yeres that any que…ion might grow vponupon it. But what their opinion was, …f the necessitie of the one sacrament, as much as the o…her, it is easie to proue both by their argument, which Bristow confesseth they vsed, & also by their own words, whatsoeuer the blind guides of the Tridentine councel …ay in their defence. They brought in y^e Eucharist (saith Bristow) onelyonly to proue that baptisme is necessary to the euerlasting life of children. Verie well: but what force …n the worlde hath that argument of the Euchariste, for the necessitie of baptisme, if the Eucharist also bee not necessarie for children? For the Pelagians might reply, that if the Euchariste be not necessarie, no more is baptisme for the atteyning of eternal life. But those fathers labored to prooue the necessitie of baptisme for infants, by the necessitie of the Euchariste for infantes: And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine. As cont. Iul. …ib. 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome, Qui parvulos &c. which hath defined that infantes except, they eate the flesh of the son of man can hauehave no life at all in thē. And there he meaneth of eating sacramētally: as his owne words cited by Augustine declare, Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia: Nónne apertissimè de parvulis loquitur? Haec enim ejus verba sunt &c. Doth he not most manifestly speake of infantes? For these are his owne wordes: Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asserit, praedicare &c. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach, that infants, may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life, euen without the grace of baptisme, it is a verie foolish thing. For excepte they shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, they shall hauehave no life in themselues. But they which defend thē to hauehave this life without regeneratiō, seeme to me that they would make frustrate baptisme it selfe, when they preach them to hauehave that which we beleue is not to be conferred vponupon them but by baptisme p. 48&c. And within fewe lines after Augustine saith: Ecce beatae memoriae &c. Beholde Pope Innocentius of blessed memorie saith: that infantes hauehave not life, without the baptisme of Christ and without participation of the body and bloud of Christ. Agayne, lib. 1. Cap. 2. hee speaketh against the Pelagians, which granted that baptisme was necessarie for infantes, to attaine to the kingdome of heauen, but not for remission of sinnes. Nec illud cogitatis &c. Neither doe you consider this, that they cannot hauehave life, which are expertes without part of the body and bloude of Christ, seeing hee sayth himselfe: Except you shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude, you shall hauehave no life in you.

Agayne, Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelligeretis, crederetis quare dixerit Dominus: Non opus est san… medicus &c. If you did vnderstande, you woulde beleeue wherefore our Lorde saide, The whole neede not the Phisition, but they that are sicke: you would beleeue truely, that they are not whole, but wounded, which are offered to be healed to our sauiour y^e Phisition, at the station of Baptisme: and that they shoulde not hauehave life, except they eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of him which is life. For he him selfe hath said, Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, you shal not hauehave eternall life in you, and hee which eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life. Howe therefore doe you promise the life of the kingdome of heauen to infantes, not borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, Non cibatis carne atque non potatis, not fedd with the flesh of Christ and which hauehave not dronke the bloud of Christ, which is shedde for the remission of sinnes? For it is his decree: If any man bee not borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. For to enter into the kingdome of heauen is none other thing, but to liue in a blessed life which remayneth for euer and euer. Beholde hee which is not baptised and he also which is depriued of the vital meate and cup, is diuided from the kingdome of heauen &c. To p. 49the like effecte hee writeth, Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus &c. If reconciliation by Christ be necessarie, for all men, sinne hath passed oouer all men, by which wee were enimies, that we hauehave neede of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the lauer of regeneration, and in the body and bloude of Christ, without the which, no not infantes can hauehave life in themselues.

Also Contra Iulian, lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his pietie, that infantes shoulde be damned for not doing that which they coulde not doe, he addeth, Vbi etiam ponis &c. where also wilt thou place them, because they shall lacke life, seeing they hauehave not eaten the flesh of the Sonne of mā, nor drunke his bloude?

Also de peccatorū meritis & remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristowe but mingled with many intersections of his owne, as his maner is. After Augustine hath rehearsed the text, Ioan. 6. Except ye eate &c: hee addeth Quid vltrà querimus? &c. What seeke wee further? What can they aunswere to this, except stubbornes doe stretch their striuing sinowes against the constancie of the manifest trueth? Or dare any man say this also, that this sentence pertayneth not to infantes, and that they may without the participation of this body and bloud, hauehave life in them &c? Likewise cap. 24. he saith, Optimè Punici &c. Best of all, y^e Christians of Africa, do call baptisme it selfe nothing else but health, and the sacrament of the body of Christ, nothing else but life: Whence, but of an auncient (as I thinke) and apostolike tradition by which they holde it ingrafted vntounto the Church of Christ, that without baptisme and participation of the Lordes table, no man at all can come, not onelyonly, not to the kingdome of God, but neither to health & life euerlasting? For this also the scripture testifieth according to those thinges which wee hauehave sayde before. For what other thing doe they holde, which call baptisme by the name of health, but that which is sayde, hee hath saued vsus by y^e lauer of regeneration, and that which Peter saith, so also doeth baptisme in like manner saue p. 50you? What other thing also doe they holde which call the sacrament of our Lordes table, life, but that which is saide, I am the breade of life, which came downe from heauen: and the breade which I will giuegive, is my fleshe, for the life of the worlde: And except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, ye shall hauehave no life in you? If therefore as so many and so greate testimonies of GOD doe consent, that neither health nor life eternall without baptisme, and the body and bloud of our Lord is to be hoped to any body, in vaine without these is it promised to Infantes. Furthermore, if from health and life eternall, nothing but sinnes do separate, by these sacramentes, nothing but the guilt of sinne is loosed in infantes.

These places of Augustine I hauehave rehearsed the more at large, that the impudencie of the councell of Trent and of their poore patrone Bristowe, might appeare, whiche would excuse the errour of the auncient Churche, and of the Bishoppe of Rome in those times, in saying that albeit they vsed to minister the communion to infantes, yet they did it not for any necessitie to saluation: whereas the contrary by so many places, and more then I hauehave rehearsed, doth most manifestly appeare.

As for the practise whiche he confesseth of giuing that sacrament to infantes, he saith is not against Probet seipsum, &c. Let a man examine himselfe, &c. Because that infantes may examine them selues by others, (whiche is a monstrous kinde of speache) as well as beleeue and repent by others. Here is one errour of Augustine defended by an other of his: for infantes are not baptized for the faith of other men, but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD, to whome baptisme is no more to be denied, then circumcision was to the infantes of the Iewes. The Prophet sayeth, Iustus &c. The righteous man shall liue by his owne faith.

It is not the faith of other men that can procure p. 51life vntounto vsus. Neither is faith required of infantes, before they can heare the worde of God, which is the onelyonly ordinary meanes by whiche faith commeth. But infantes (sayeth Bristowe) bee in no mortall sinnes, being newely baptized, and therefore they neede no examination for feare least they should come vnworthily. Saint Augustine confesseth that hee was in mortall sinne, euen in his infancie: Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est, non animus infantium: The weakenesse of the members of infantes is innocent, not the minde of infantes. Afterwarde hee bringeth examples of enuie euen in an infant, and at last concludeth: Quod si, &c. And if it be so that I was conceyued in iniquitie, and that in sinnes my mother in her wombe nourished me; where I beseech thee my GOD, when LORDE was I thy seruant, where or when was I innocent? By this you see, there is no shorte time of mans life free from sinne. Neither may you cavill, that Augustine was not baptised in his infancie, seeing he speaketh generally of the condition of all infantes, which is not chaunged by baptisme, although sinne be not imputed vntounto them.

Wherefore to speake after your Popishe supposition of Baptisme, that by the worke wrought all sinne committed before baptisme, is abolished in baptisme; what if the infant not knowing the mysterie of baptisme, be angry with them that hauehave taken him out of his warme clothes and plunged him in baptisme? is this no sinne? But what infant can examine himselfe of this sinne? And what can the examination of other men profite him whome the holy Ghoste will hauehave to examine himselfe? As for the distinction of Votum explicitum & implicitum, he sendeth vsus to Allens booke de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. &c.

For how can we be assured, that children hauehave a close desire to baptisme more then to the cōmunion? Or how can it be proued, That they hauehave any desire explicite or implicite to either of both the sacramentes? If … be lawful to imagine of infantes, against all reason, p. 52and without all scriptures, wee may fill bookes with distinctions and deuises innumerable. Last of all, hee chargeth mee, with falsification by adding, because the councell of Trent saith, that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis, some times and in some places. But I pray thee Bristowe, what hauehave I falsified? the councel of Trent, which thou affirmest that I did neuer read? Thou sayest they that did communicate infantes, were not so many, as Fulke doeth make them. Why, howe many doe I make them? I sayde that the Pope of Rome and all they that tooke his part in S. Augustines time, were in this error, that the sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ, was to bee ministred to infantes. And hauehave I not playnely, and now also plentifully prooued it out of Saint Augustine? where is then this falsification? If I had not prooued that which I sayde, yet there is difference betwixt falsification, and a false affirmation. And because the Tridentine councell sayth, it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued, it is manifest that it began to bee ministred to infantes before Cyprians tyme, and continued fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after. Witnesse Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli. de Coron. mil. where he sheweth that this manner was continued vntill the times of Ludouicus Pius, and Lotharius and after: citing these wordes out of the bookes of ceremonies called Agendae of infantes newely baptised. Si Episcopus &c. If the Bishop be present, it must bee immediately confirmed and then communicated. If the Bishop bee not present, before the infante doe sucke or taste any thing, let the Prieste giuegive him the communion of the body and bloude of CHRIST, yea before the Masse, if necessitie require. By this Testimonie it appeareth not onelyonly that this custome was long obserued, but also that it was ioyned with opinion of necessitie, so that masse should not be taried for, if the infant were in any danger.

p. 53Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later tymes, and not of olde, and 1. touching the bodies of Angels.Bristowe.

According to the demaunde of the challenger, Fulke.which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popishe Church, to bee shewed him, I bring certayne examples of diuerse kindes of errors, which are not the matters in controuersie betweene vsus, but such as if the Papistes bee not impudent, they them selues will acknowledge to bee errors. Now commeth Bristowe in this his balde and confusd reply, and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church, but those which I note vponupon such occasion, willeth all them that would know the true Church, to consider that these errors (if they bee any) are so fewe and so light, that they may bee a sure confirmation to Papistes, and a iust motiue to all other to embrace the Church of this time, no lesse then of olde time, considering it is no lesse, but much more vnreproueable of y^e aduersarie. Neuertheles as few and as light as these errors seeme, they are sufficient if they were but one, to proue y^t which I intend: namely that the Popishe Church hath erred, which being proued the surest piller of Poperie is broken, and all the rest of their opinions which they holde against the scriptures, & the true Church of God, when it is shewed that the popish Church hath erred, will shewe themselues to bee errors, which had nothing else to gayne them credite, but this one false principle That the Popishe Church can not erre.

And touching the bodies of Angels, where I say, Ar. 60. the seconde councell of Nice determined that Angels and soules of men had bodies, were visible and circumscriptible, and therefore must bee paynted, affirming this to be y^e iudgement of the Catholike Church: Bristowe answereth, that I misreport the matter, for it is not the councells determination, nor saying, but the saying onelyonly of Ioannes Bishoppe of Thessalonica, rehearsed in the councell, with an admonition giuen by p. 54Tharasius B. of Const against the madnes of them that ouerthrew the images of our Lorde & his vndefiled mother, seeing this holy father doth shew, that Angels also may be painted. But the trueth is (as may apeare to eueryevery man that wil read the Councel, act. 5) that this is a vaine glosse of Bristow to elude the matter. After y^e saying of Ioannes is rehearsed, in which this grosse error is conteined, Tharasius the archb. of Const. thereupon concludeth: Ostendit autem pater, quòd & angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt, & vt homines apparuerunt. This father sheweth, that we ought to paint the angels also, seeing they may be circumscribed, & hauehave appeared as men: by which it is manifest, that Tharasius approueth the opinion of Ioannes. Would you now hauehave the determination of y^e Councel? It followeth immediatly, Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine: The holye synode sayde yea forsooth my lorde. By this it is manifest, that not I, but Bristow hath misreported the matter. Where I sayde (If this be not to induce an errour to make men beleeue that angels and spirites hauehave bodies visible and circumscriptible, there was neuer any errour since the world began:) Bristowe pulleth me backe and saith, Soft man, other manner of errours hauehave beene defended since the world began. I wot well, & greater, but if any of them be a manifest errour, this is as manifest as any of them all. Yet is Bristowe so zealous in excusing this error, that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slaunder many of the most catholike and auncient fathers with it, Basilius. Athanasius, Methodius, yea, Augustine (he sayeth) make a question of it. In which poynt he sheweth great ignorance or wilfull malice. For whatsoeuer is founde in any of those auncient writers, sounding to such a purpose, it onelyonly by mistaking the worde foreign or corpus, which they vsed generally, for that which nowe in the schooles (according to Aristotle) is called foreign or substantia, substance comprehending both bodies and spirits, not that euer they thought that angels, spirites & soules of men had visible and circumscriptible bodyes, such as may be set forth by painting, or such as the bodies of men & p. 55beastes are, or that they consisted either of ayery of fyery matter, as that blynd Bishopp so imagined out of that verse of the Psalme. 104. He maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fyer. Last of all he sayeth there is no determination of the Church to condemne the assertion as heretical, thoughe there be sufficient to count it temerarious & erronious: whither it be hereticall, I will not nowe dispute, seeing by Bristowe it is granted to be an errour, & I hauehave sufficiently proued, that it was mainteined by the whole Councell, which was as much as I required for that point.

2 Touching the Popes superioritie ouer the Councell.

The determinations of the Pope and of the generall Bristowe. Fulke.Councell, being accompted among the Papistes, as the rules of trueth, I sayde are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them, which of them is superior to other, the Pope ouer the Councell, or the Councell ouer the Pope, & that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certeintie of trueth in either of them. To this Bristow answereth, that he thinketh him selfe able to satisfie me or any other reasonable man, if he saith, that then we are in a right beliefe, when we hold those determinations that are the determinatiōs iointly both of the Pope & of the Councel, as those of Trent. But he is gretly deceiued, for while it is in doubt, whether may erre, & ech part chargeth other with erring, it may be, & there is none other likelyhod to the contrary but y^t they do both erre, so y^t neither I, nor any other reasonable mā may safely tye our faith to any of their determinatiōs. For they wherof either part may err, being seuered, may also erre, but when they are ioyned together, you will say the Councels determination is vncerteine, except it be cōfirmed by y^e Pope. But if y^e Pope also may erre, how is it made certein by his confirmation? Another wil say, the Popes determination is vncerteine, except the general councel giuegive consent & approbation therto. But if y^e general councel may err, what certeintie is in y^e approbatiō therof? So y^e doubt is as great as it was before, wher Brist. affirmeth y^t no man wil bind vsus to beliue y^e determinatiōs of any Councel y^t are not certeinly cōfirmed by y^e p. 56Pope: he sayeth more then he is able to warrant: for beside that D. Cole in his answere to the Bishop of Sarum manifestly defendeth the authoritie of the councels against the Pope, many popish diuines were and are of that opinion, that the Pope may erre, and is vnderunder the authoritie of the councell.

But where I shewe a manifest errour in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and approuing one of another, of the Pope and the councell: Bristowe sayeth, the matter is not so vncerteine amongest them, as I make it. For first he graunteth, that the councell of Ferrara and Florence, determined that the Pope was aboue the councell, and that the councell might erre, and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same iudgement. He graunteth also that the councels of Constance and Basil determined the contradictorie, namely that the councell was aboue the Pope, and that the Pope may erre. But where I sayde, that Martinus quintus, chosen Pope by the councell of Constance, was of the same iudgement, there he cryeth, hoe, you proue not that, nor neuer shall proue. No shal, Maister Bristow? why sir, is it like, that the councell which had deposed three Popes, would choose a fourth man Pope, that was of a contrary iudgement vntounto them? Yea, how coulde he accept the Papacie, beeing not voide, if the councell had not authoritie to depose the Pope, whosoeuer hee was of the three, that was the right Pope. But seeing Iohn the 23. was of the Emperour and the councell accounted the right Pope, who also before his deposition, affirmed that the councell of Constance was a most holy councell and could not erre: it is manifest, that this Martyn beeing a Cardinall, consented to the deposition of Iohn the 23. session. 12. therefore he was of the same iudgement that the councell was. But if you would saye, that as soone as he was made Pope, the spirite of Peter comming vponupon him, he was soudenly changed into a contrary iudgement: his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you, where you saye, that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassadour, he confirmed p. 57…ose determinations alone of the councel of Constāce which were …ainst the errours of Wickeliefe, Hus, and Hierom of Prage. …or he did so generally confirme all decrees of that …uncell, that he commaunded it to be enquired of persons suspected, in articles as followeth: Item vtrum credat, teneat & asserat, quòd quodlibet concilium generale, & …am Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentet. Item, whether he beleeue, holde and affirme, that eueryevery generall councell, and namely the councell of Constance doeth represent the vniuersall churche. If Martyn the 5. would hauehave eueryevery man to beleeue that the councell of Constance representeth the vniuersall church, he would also hauehave them beleeue that the councell of Constance cannot erre, which councel condemned the Pope of heresie, and deposed him of his Papacye. Again, another Article: Item vtrum credat quòd illud quod sacrum concilium Constantiense vniuersalem Ecclesiam repraesentans, …probauit & approbat, in fauor em fidei & ad salutem anima…m quod hoc est ab vniuersis Christi fidelibus approbandum & …endum. Et quid condemnauit & condemnat, esse fidei vel …nis moribus contrarium, hoc ab iisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato, credendum & asserendum. Also, whether hee beleeueth, that that which the holy councell of Constance, representing the vniuersall Church, hath approued and doth approue in fauour of the faith, to the health of mens soules, that the same is of all faithfull Christians to be approued and holden. And that which it hath condemned and doth condemne, to be contrary to faith or good manners, that the same is of them to be holden beleeued and affirmed as a thing condemned. But the councell of Constance approued this assertion, that the councell cannot erre, and that the councell is aboue the Pope to condemne him of error, which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith, & the health of mens soules, therefore Pope Martyn the 5. was of the iudgement of the councell of Constance. Finally in the end of the councell of Constance the approbation of Pope Martyn is recorded of all things decreede …nd determined in matters of faith: Among which wee p. 58must needes account this question of the Popes erring, and the councels not erring, which is accompted so necessarie an article of faith, that the Papistes striue for nothing so much at this daye, as for that which was there condemned by the Councell. Quibus sic factis sanctissimus dominus noster Papa respondendo ad praedicta, quòd omnia & singula, determinata, conclusa & decreta in materiis fidci per praesent concilium conciliariter tenere & inuiolabiliter seru… volebat, & nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipsáque sic conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter nec alio modo. Const. Sess. 45. which things being so done, our mo…te holy lorde the Pope sayde, answering to the foresayde things, that he would holde and keepe inuiolable all and singular things, determined, concluded, and decreede in matters of faith, by the present Councell in fourme of Councell: and that he would neuer go against them by any meanes. And the same things so done in forme of Councell, he approueth and ratifyeth, and not otherwise nor after any other manner. Nowe it is certeine that nothing was done or decreede more Councellike, then that solemne canon, That the Councel is aboue the Pope, and hath authoritie to depose the Pope, which Pope Iohn 23. confirmed and confessed, that the Councell could not erre, &c. And therefore it is vtterly false, that Pope Martin confirmed those determinations alone, which were against the errours of Wicliff. Hus, & Hieronym, at the petition of the Polonian Am… assadour, as Bristowe sayth. For the request was made vntounto the Pope, not by one Ambassadour, but by diuerse, and them not from the king of Polonia onelyonly, but also from the duke of Lituania, that a certeine booke of one fryer Iohn Falkenberge, conteining notable heresies (as they said) & condemned by the deputies of the Councel, &c. might be condemned in an open session of the Councel, & so pronounced before the Councel were dissolued: otherwise they protested in y^t name of their princes, that they susteined grieuance, & would appeale vntounto the next Councell, vntounto whom the Pope answered as before generally, that whatsoeuer was decreed by the Councel in fourme of a Councell, concerning matter of faith, he did p. 59…owe and woulde obserue, and according to a decre of …e same councell, calleth another councell to follow a …apia &c. shewing therein not onelyonly his iudgement, but …lso his obedience to the decree of the Councel. Concer…ing Nicolaus 5. (Bristow saith) he did but onelyonly ratifie …e collations of benefices and such like things done in …e Councell of Basil. Herevnto I aunswere the wordes …re so generall in that Bull of approbation of thinges c…acted and done in the councell of Basil by Pope Nico…as, as they may containe all manner of decrees of the same Councell. Omnia & singula tam iustitiam &c. all & eueryevery thing concerning as well iustice as grace, in persons or places, which in time of the grauntes and other the premisses obeyed our foresaide reuerende and welbeloued brother Amadeus Cardinall, Bishop, Legat, and Vicar aforesaid, then called Felix the fift and the congregated aforesaide or either of them, as well by the Councell of Basil which then was, and Amadeus in his obedience called Felix the fifte, as also them which in the cities of Basil and Lausanna, remained congregated vnderunder the name of a generall councell; or any other or others by his or either of their authoritie yea legates de latere, delegates or any other whomsoeuer, frō thē or either of them, hauing power ioyntly or seuerally,) howe soeuer done, performed, granted, giuen, indulted, disposed & ordeined, although they be greter & weightier matters, or of any other nature whatsoeuer frō y^e premises, & such as require to be specially expressed, which we wil & decree to be accōpted as if they were specially expressed w^t all things therof following And also al & eueryevery thing don by y^e ordinaries in y^e same places, for y^e benefite of peace & vnity of y^e church of our own motion, of our certain knoledg & of y^e fulnes of y^e apostolike power, by y^e councell & assent of our reuerende brethren the Cardinals of y^e holy church of R. by tenor of these present; we approue ratifie & also confirm, & wil hauehave to be taken for ratified & cōfirmed. Here you se al & eueryevery thing done & ordeined in the Councell of Basil whatsoeuer they be, expressed, or not expressed, confirmed and ratified by the Bull of Pope Nicholas the 5. And in the Councell of Basil, the p. 60councell of Constance, and especially that decree of the superioritie of the councell aboue the Pope, was decreed, & pope Eugenius, for his contumacie was deposed and another elected, all whose actes also pope Nicolas confirmeth and ratifieth.

Likewise where as Bristowe saith that Pope Eugenius …he 4. did no more but declare that the councell of Basil from the beginning to a certaine time was a lawfull councell and lawfully continuated: The truth is, hee did both by his owne Buls and by his owne deputies a great deale more then Bristow confesseth: and euen by this that he confesseth, it is easie to proue that Eugenius graunted the councel to be aboue the pope. For Eugenius had done what he coulde to dissolue the councell of Basil, and sent out three buls for the same purpose, notwithstanding the councell was continued by authoritie of the councell against his decrees: wherfore seeing he declared, (as Bristowe confesseth) that the councell was lawfully continued, contrary to his decrees (which he was compelled to reuoke) he declared that the councell was aboue the pope, and had authoritie to controll him and his decrees. And that he did more then Bristowe saith he did: It is manifest in the recorde of the councell, session 16. That Eugenius declared the councell of Basill to be lawfull and lawfully continued vntill Anno dom. 1433. 18. Cal. Ian. reuoking three bulles by which he had taken vponupon him before to dissolue the same councell, in which bulles hee complained that the councell vsurped autoritie aboue the pope. Afterwarde sess. 17. Anno. 1434. 24. of April. being Saturday, the Popes legates were incorporated into the councell of Basil, being sworne to defende the councell, and by speciall words, the decree of the councel of Constance Sessi. 4. by which the councell is decreed to be aboue the Pope, and the Pope bound to obey the councell and the decrees thereof. And 6. Cal. Maij. The praesidents of pope Eugenius were admitted with these conditions vnderunder written: Videlicet sine omni iurisdictione coactiuo, saluo etiam modo procedendi in hoc sacro concilio hactenus obseruato, That is to say, without all iurisdiction of p. 61compelling, also hauing the manner of proceeding he…herto obserued in this holy councell. By this you see, …hat pope Eugenius did not onelyonly declare the councell … be lawfully continued, but also he declared his owne …rror in reuoking of his bulles of dissolution. Also by …is legates he sware to defend the councel and to keepe …he decree of the councel of Constance, sessi. 4. which was …ade against the Popes superioritie ouer the councell. And thirdly that by his presidents he accepted such pre…idency as the councell woulde graunt, without all iu…isdiction of compulsion, being himselfe compelled to …taine y^t order of proceeding which the councell before …is presidencie was admitted, had obserued. What Leo …he tenth in his Laterane councell decreed against the …ouncell of Basil, I hauehave nothing to doe with it, except … be to proue that one pope going against the decrees of …nother pope, and one councell against another, that …either of both is to be credited. Howe childish my in…ultation is, howe voide of victorie my triumph, howe …nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are, as Bristow scof…eth, I leaue to all reasonable men to consider.

3. Touching the Constance councels presumption.Bristowe

I sayd it was horrible praesumption, that the councell Fulke.of Constance decreede contrarie to the worde of God in plaine wordes: That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to bee receiued in both kindes, and that the faithfull in the primitiue Church did so receiue it: yet the custome of the Church of Rome shall preuaile, and whosoeuer saith contrarie it …an heretike. These wordes he saith I print (as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed) in a distincte letter as the plaine wordes of the councell, whereas these are not the wordes of the councell. Heere is the quarell. No sir, I neuer ment to print these wordes as the wordes of the councell, but as the summe and contente of them, which because they were large I woulde not set downe at large in a bymatter. But now being urged with falsification p. 62or at least false collectiō. I wil set thē down as they a… Cō. Const sess…. 13. w^tout any such interruptions as is vsus…al w^t you to make, y^t you might carie away y^e simple readen mind from y^e true sense of thē. Cùm in nonnullis &c. wheras in certaine partes of the worlde, certeine parsons presume rashly to affirme. y^t Christian people ought to receiue y^e sacrament of y^t Euchariste, vnderunder both kindes o… bread & wine, & do communicate the lay people euerie where, not onelyonly vnderunder y^e kind of bread, but also vnderunder … kinde of wine, yea after supper, or otherwise not fasting, and stubbernely affirme y^t they ought so to be communicated against the laudable custome of y^e church resonably approued, which as sacrilegious damnably they goe about to reproue: hereof it is that this present holy generall councell of Constance, lawfully gathered together in y^e holyghost, entending to prouide for the saluation of y^e faithfull against this error, hauing had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the lawe of god and of man, declareth, decreeth, & defineth, that although Christ after supper did institute, & minister vntounto his disciples this holy sacrament vnderunder both kindes of bread & wine, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable authoritie of holy Canons & the approued custome of the Church hath obserued & doth obserue, y^t this sacrament ought not to be made after supper, neither to be receiued of y^e faithful not fasting, but in case of sicknesse or other necessitie of right or of y^e Church graunted or admitted. And as this custome to auoide certeine daungers and offences is reasonably brought in, that although in y^e primitiue church, this sacrament was receiued of y^e faithfull vnderunder both kinds, & afterward of thē which make it, it is receiued vnderunder both kinds, & of y^e lay people only vnderunder y^e kind of bread; seeing it ought most stedfastly to be beleeued & by no meanes to be doubted, but y^t the whole bodie and bloud of Christ is truly cōtained as wel vnderunder y^e kind of bread, as vnderunder y^e kind of wine. Whervpō seeing such a custome by y^e church & holy fathers is reasonably brought in, & hath beene very long obserued, it must be takē for a law which it is not lawful to reproue, or with p. 63out y^e authority of y^e church to change at mens pleasure. …herfore to say, y^t to keep this custom or law is sacrilege … vnlawfull, it ought to be iudged erroneous: and they …hich stubbernly affirme the contrary of y^e premisses, are … be driuen away as heretiks, & to be greuosly punished …y y^t dyocessanes of y^e places or their officials, or by the in…uisitor of heretical prauity, in those kingdomes or pro…inces, in which any thing perhaps shalbe attempted or …resumed against this decree, according to y^e Canonicall …nd lawful functions which hauehave ben solemnly invēted … fauour of the Catholike faith against heretikes and …heir fautors. Here you see y^e prelates of the councel take …pon thē as great authority in altering y^e matter of y^e sa…rament, which is a necessarie part of y^e institutiō therof, …s in ordering y^e time in which it shalbe ministred, which …s no part of y^e institution therof. Also y^t they confes that …n y^e primitiue church y^e sacrament was receiued in both …inds, therfore they are presūptuous to say hoc nō obstāte, …his notw^tstāding, y^e custome of later yeares brought in …s reasonable & shalbe obserued as a law, the gainsayers …herof being cōdēned & punished as heretikes. Brist. ca…illeth, y^t they say not y^e custome of y^e church of Rome, as I said: As though, whē they speake of the custome of the church, they meane any other church but y^e church of R. Such bables B. hath to couer their blasphemous & sacri…legious presumption.

Touching certain false interpretations of scripture.Bristowe. Fulke.

To color y^e false interpretatiōs folowing, he cōmēdeth y^e sayings of August. de doct. Christ. li. 1. ca. 36. & lib. 3. ca. 27. in which first he requireth eueryevery mā principally to shoote at y^t sense of y^e writer in expositiō of y^e scripture, but if he misse y^t sense & hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith, or is profitable to build charity towards god & our neighbor, he is not perniciously deceiued &c. Vpō this Allen in his offer to y^t protestāt saith, Ar. 86. & 87. Let any man proue vntounto me, that the true & only church of god may falsely interprete any sentence of holy scripture, & I recant. This generall offer without any qualification of not erring perniciouslye, or wilfully lying, as is conteined in Saint Augustines sayinges, vntounto whiche p. 64Bristowe woulde nowe seeme to make relation, I did accept. And first I proued that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Westerne Church did falsely interprete this scripture Ioan. 6. Except ye eate &c. and that to maintaine a false opinion of the necessitie of the communion for all persons, and euen infantes, that should hauehave life euerlasting, and therefore repugnant to right faith, as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter.

Secondly I noted diuerse places of scripture, not onelyonly falsely but also ridiculously expoūded, in the second councell of Nice, to maintaine idolatrie against the expresse commaundement of God, and therefore contrary to the right faith and the louelove of God. Concerning these interpretations Bristow saith, that they are not the interpretations of the councell (whose interpretation they are not bounde to defende, but onelyonly their definitions) but they are the interpretations of particular persons. To this I answere, they are contained in y^e synodal book sent into the Westerne Churches, to stirre them vp to idolatrie (which booke was aunswered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commaundement, and in his name) therefore they are approued by the councell, yea some of them are contained also in that report of the councell, which is set downe in the bookes of councels. The text of lighting a candell, and putting it vnderunder a bushel, is affirmed of Bristowe to be well applyed in the Epistle of Constantinus, & his mother to the synod. But he is deceiued. For there is no argument of setting of images vponupon the altar drawne out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal aboue rehearsed, confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus.

The seconde text, God made man according to his image: therefore we must hauehave images in the Church: Bristowe confesseth to bee contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperour. But the same is approued in the councell, and is the popes Epistle, whose credit is greater with you than the councels. But he doth not conclude (you say) that therfore we must hauehave images in the Church. What then? forsooth that a… Adam being p. 65the image of God is to be honoured, so eueryevery image is holy that i… made in the name of God, be it an image of Angels, prophets, Apostles, martyrs or iust persons. This conclusion conteineth more thē I vrged, namely y^e worshiping of images, & not the making of thē only. And because you are so impudēt to say, it is not the coūcel, but pope Adrianus that so saith &c: I wil let the reader vnderstand, that in the seconde action, there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian, reade in the synode, one to the Emperours, the other to Tharasius the patriarche of Constantinople. Afterward Peter and Peters liuetenants of the Pope, required Tharasius to declare, whether he cōsented to y^e Popes letters or no. Tharasius answered, that concerning the worshiping of images, he did allow the Popes letters. Thē said the Synod, Vniuersa sancta Synodus &c. The whole holy synod doth so beleeue and teach. Peter and Peters Legates of the sea Aposto like saide: Let the holy synode tell vsus, whether it receiue y^e letters of y^e most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synode aunswered: we follow them, we receiue them, and allowe them.

The 3. text (As we hauehave heard, so we hauehave seene in y^e citie of our God. ps. 48. to proue y^t God must not be knowne by onelyonly hearing of his word, but also by sight of images:) Bristowe affirmeth that it is not the councell that citeth it, but a Deacon called Epiphanius, which readeth it to the councell out of a booke of his owne: I answere hee readeth it with approbation and good liking of the councell, which in effect is al one. But he citeth it not (saith Bristowe) to shew how God must be knowne, but about the storie of Christs manhoode, nor to proue immediately, y^t the said story must be painted &c. as though God can be knowne but by Christ, for knowledge of whom, by imagery, he cyteth this text of the Canticle also, Can. 2. shew me thy face, & let me heare thy voyce. And whether it be immediately, or mediately, certain it is, y^t he citeth this text, Pal. 48. to proue, y^t the pictures of saincts are rightly deliuered in the Church, none otherwise, then the reading of the holy gospel.

The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense, & falsified in p. 66words is Ioan. 10. ver. 29. My father which gaue them vntounto me (speaking of his sheep) is greater then al. Which text in the Councell of Lateran, holden vnderunder Pope Innocent the thirde, is falsified in words after this manner. Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus. That whiche the father hath giuen me is greater then all: and interpreted to proue the eternall begetting of Christ of the substance of his father. To this Bristow aunswereth her… is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense. What sense Allen hath of false interpretation, I knowe not, sure I am, that a text cannot be truely interpreted in sense, when it is corrupted in wordes, which make the sense. Secondly he saith y^t of my two crimes, I must strike out one: for supposing the text to be as the councell alledgeth it, the interpretation is not vnapt. But I reply, supposing the text to be as it is in deede: Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needes drawe with it not onelyonly an vnapt but also a wrong interpretation. But what couler of reason hauehave you (saith he) that the councell hath falsified the words of that text? Is it not in the vulgar Latine translation verbatim, as the councell alledgeth it? yes verily. And so is the councell cleared of that crime also. Not so soone as you weene: for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture, hauehave crept into your translation, it had beene the councels dutie, not to hauehave winked at it, if it could hauehave seene it, much lesse to hauehave confirmed it, so farre forth, as of so many texts which cleerely proue Christ to bee consubstantiall with his father, it coulde finde none, but take this corrupted and falsified text. But the most auncient Latine writers, saint Augustine, saint Ambrose, and saint Hilarie doe reade iumpe as we doe, saith Bristowe.

That doth not amende the matter one whit, but sheweth y^e errour of the Latine Church to hauehave the longer continued, which in the councell of Lateran (if it could hauehave espied it) ought rather to hauehave bene reformed then confirmed. But will you chaunge your copie (saith Bristowe) and frame your accusation anewe against the translation as differing from the Originall, that is from the Greeke? Sir I neede not chaunge my copie, for my accusation p. 67is alreadie framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrarie to the originall trueth: yet Bristowe goeth on. But afore you doe so, take my counsaile with you, and bee sure first that the Greeke is so as you say. For some Greeke copies, of auncient also had euen as we hauehave: as namely, the copie which saint Cyrill, being a Greeke Doctor, expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in Ioan. cap. 10.

In deede it were not amisse, to take the councell of such a learned Grecian as Bristowe is, that I might bee sure howe the Greeke text is. For hee can tell me of auncient Greeke copies, yea namely of that which saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor did followe, and expounde, which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text.

Verely the sight of such a copie woulde doe mee great pleasure. But vntill I may see it, I will suspende my iudgement, and in the meane time, I woulde borrowe a worde or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower of this booke of Bristowe. I praye you sir, HaueHave you perused and allowed thi… booke? What els? doe you not see it printed in the first leafe, Perused and allowed by mee Thomas Stapleton? And are you so good a peruser and allower of bookes, Maister Stapleton, that you cannot espie in them Chalk taken for Cheese? Doe you not see your scholer Bristowe alledge saint Cyrill a Greeke doctor to proue the truth of the greeke text lib. 7. in Ioan cap. 10. and when all commeth to all, there is no such booke of Cyrill the auncient Greeke doctor extant, but it is poore Iodocus Clicthouius a late Latine writer, that hath supplyed those 4. bookes of Cyrill that are lost. Wherefore to returne to you M. Bristow except your councel be better and sauour more of good learning and knowledge, you may keepe it for your friendes. As for your assertion, without doubt that the copie which your authenticall translator followed, had euen as hee translated, helpeth you little or nothing: which if it were graunted, howe can you proue that hee translated it as you nowe reade it?

Seeing it is certainly knowne to them that hauehave conferred p. 68his translation with the originall, that beside that in diuerse places he giueth not the true sense of the Greeke, in many texts also he is corrupted, where he had translated right. Wherefore how fully I am aunswered on eueryevery side cōcerning this text as you boast in the end, let the readers iudge.

In y^e last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting vponupon vsus that corrupt Latine translation, which all learned men doe know to be corrupt, in such texts as are the most coulerable places for the defence of popish doctrine, of which I giuegive one example for all. They allege the text (1. Cor. 10. Qui stat, videat ne cadat: he that standeth, let him take heed… he fall not) against the certaintie of faith, where as the Greeke hath not, hee that standeth, but, hee that thinketh he standeth, &c.

Bristowe biddeth mee looke better in the text, their translation is not as I charge it, but euen as I say the Greeke to be: Qui se existimat stare &c: And therefore in the margent he biddeth, stand out of his light that the childe may see. Might not I say shore vp your eyes syr. Richarde, and see that I doe not say, the text is so translated, but so alledged. They alledge the text, Qui stat, videat ne cadat. And if you require mine author who allegeth it so: looke in Haymo vponupon the verie place, and you shall finde these verie wordes. Qui stat in fide & operibus, videat ne cadat: He that standeth in faith and workes, let him see y^t he fal not. And if you woulde hauehave a later writer that so alledgeth it, looke in Gregory Martin one of your broode, who in his booke of schisme alleageth it in so many wordes: Qui stat, videat ne cadat, in the first chapter of his booke.

And what hath brought them to this vnderstanding, but your corrupt translation? Qui se existimat star…, hee that iudgeth or is perswaded that he standeth. For existimare signifieth properly to iudge or esteeme vppon good groundes, to thinke certeinely, and not like putare, which worde Ambrose vseth in the interpretation of this text, and signifieth to thinke vainly. And so is existimare p. 69vsed by your translator in other places. Rom. 6. Ita & vos existimate, &c. So you esteeme or iudge your selues to be deade vntounto sinne &c. And againe 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo vt ministros, Christi &c. Let a man thus esteeme or iudge of vsus, as of the ministers of Christ. Againe Iac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate &c. My brethren count it all ioy when you fall into diuerse temptations. In all which places existimare signifieth to thinke certeinely & not vainely, as in this text, 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare, he that vainely thinketh that he standeth, let him take heede that he falleth not. I confesse I might hauehave brought an hundreth places of scripture in which the corruption is more cleere vntounto eueryevery simple mans vnderstanding, but this I tooke to be sufficient, seing to proue the corruption of the translation, was not the principall matter of the demaunde which I aunswered, but to yeelde a reason why the popishe Church did not as wel corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine conteined in the same.