Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 1 · Chapter 10

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 1 · Chapter 10

p. 261The tenth Chapter.

That notwithstanding all which Fulke hath saide against D. BristoweAllens articles, in his first Book, being of that matter, or also in his other of Purgatorie: euerie one of my 51. demandes, (& therfore also eueryevery one of my motiues, & likewise euerie one of those articles) standeth stil in his force. EueryEvery one (I say) and much more all of them, to make any man to be a Catholike, and not a Protestant.

To Bristowes motiues and demands, I hauehave answered Fulk…directly & purposely in a peculiar treatise, y^t although he dare not ioyne with me in aunswering of Allen directly, yet he shalbe driuen to defend his owne bragges absolutely, or else forsake his challenge shamefully. The demonstration that he boasteth of in this Chapter is for the most part, nothing else but a quoating of such places, where in his replye hee supposeth to hauehave confuted mine answeres to Allens articles: vntounto which reply, seeing I hauehave orderly reioyned in euerie point, I will not stand to repeate, where I hauehave confirmed eueryevery answer, seing this chapter of Bristow may be a sufficient register to al such Chapters, & partes of Chapters where y^e same may be foūd. And for such points of his motiues and demaunds whervnto he complaineth, that in mine answere to Allens articles I hauehave saide nothing, I must require both him and his readers, to hauehave recourse to my Booke specially written against his saide motiues, and demaundes. For in aunswering Allen, I could not prophecie, what argumentes Bristowe would bring in those bookes set forth by him so many yeres after mine answere to Allen was penned. But where he hath any argument or authoritie not directly answered before, I wil here endeuour to satisfie y^e same in such plain order as I hauehave obserued in al the rest of the booke hitherto.

p. 262Omitting therefore the two first demandes of Collatio Carthaginensis, and building of the Church, in the third of Going out, he saith that Against our imagined Church in the wilde…nesse, we are expresly warned Math. 24 Beholde Christ is in the wildernesse, doe not goe out. This aunswere as senselesse as it is, is borrowed of Stapleton in his demonstration of doctrinall principles, which I hauehave confuted in a breefe aunswere, shewing that although we seeke not Christ either in the wildernesse or in the secrete places, no not in the Popish pixe, but in heauen only, yet we are to seeke his pilgrime Churche, in what corner of the earth soeuer she be, and seeing the holy Ghost hath expresly a…sirmed that she should be hidden in the wildernesse, from the crueltie of the bloudy Dragon, what impudent ignorance, or malicious blindnesse is it in Stapleton and Bristowe, to say we are warned by Christ neuer to seeke the Church in the wildernes? as though we were forbidden to see…e her, or else to acknowledge her to be where somtime she shold be. In the 4, demand of rising after he would maintaine 2 arguments, the first is this. Our first auctors can not be named: Ergo they were none but the Apostles. This argument hath no consequens, and yet the antecedent i… false. For of many of your errors, we name the auctors, and of praier for the dead, Montanus the heretike, vntill you can name vsus a Catholique that helde it, which was more auncient then he, and although you would cleare your selues of theft, because you hauehave not stollen that article but receiued it, yet seeing it came first from a theefe, your possession can not be iust: and therefore ye must restore it to the heathen, from whence Montanus stoale it. Where I brought example of the heretikes, called Acephali, and diuerse other, Pur. 388. to proue that the first auctor of eueryevery heresie can not be named; Bristow saith, that he findeth his name, to hauehave ben Seuerus, & y^t they were but a peece of Eutyches as the Puritanes are of Caluin But when writers dout, & the common voice gaue them their name, because their bead was not knowen, the coni…cture of a name, will p. 263not serue the turne. If they had added nothing to Eutyches, they should hauehave bene called Eutychians, as for the cauill of Caluine, and the Puritanes, deserueth none aunswere. More like are the friers obseruants and general Franciscanes, to those headlesse heretikes, & the Eutychians. But Bristowe being driuen from the auctor, falleth to the beginning of an heresie, which being shewed to hauehave bene later then Christ and his Apostles, is indeede an vndoubted argument, to reproue an heresie. And the begining (saith he) is shewed by this, that the primitiue name of Christiās would not serue them, but they must hauehave new names to be called by. By this demonstratine Logike, none shill so …ptly be proued heretikes, as Monkes, Friers, Nunnes, &c who disdaining the primitiue name of Christians, hauehave chosen to themselues newe names, as Benedictines, Franciscanes, Iesuites, &c. Whereas the olde heretikes did not willingly chuse the names that they were called by, but by like names, reproched y^e true Catholikes: which argueth y^t the new name, except it be chosen by them …elues, is no good argument to conuince heretikes. Bris. asketh, if the Papists do acknowlege any founders of their faith, but y^e Apostles of Christ? yea verily y^e Pope & the popish councel, which hauehave giuen you new articles of faith, y^t y^e Apostles neuer taught, but y^• contrary, as transubstantiation, & cōmunion vnderunder one kind, &c. That Te…tul. & other latter writers do father praier for y^e dead vponupon traditiō of y^e Apostles, it is no warrant for vsus, seeing y^e doctrine therof is not found in all the holy canonicall scriptures, but is contrary, to the same, & Montanus is found to be the first that since Christ, taught praier for y^e dead. That transubstātiation was lately decreed, he answereth it was the name & not y^e thing, as Homousion was alwaies beleued euen before the Nicen Councell, which first receiued y^t name. A fit cōparison: but how can Brist. say, y^t trā substātiation was alwais beleued? when y^e cōmon opiniō almost of al y^e scholemen is, y^t before y^e determination of y^e Laterane councel, it was no heresie, to hold impuratiō or adnihilation of the Elements, and he himself confessed in the last Chapter that perfect transubstantiation p. 264was not decreed before the last Tridentine session. The second argument is this: your first auctors can be named after the beginning of the Churches rising w^t their newe opinions: Ergo their opnions were heresies, &c. To this argument I answer, denying the antecedent, for we hold no new opinion, but y^e foundation of the Prophetes and Apostles, Iesus Christ, beeing the head corner stone. Where I take exceptions to Allens rule. Pur. 413: Bristow expoundeth his meaning, to be of such an opinion as is contrary to the truth, first preached by the Apostles, and vponupon his exposition not necessary vponupon Allens wordes, chargeth me with nugation or triseling, in adding mine exception, which is the same with his exposition. I pray the reader vouchsafe to peruse the place, and see if there be any droppe of shamefast bloud left in this blundering papist, which blusheth not to scoffe at me for triselings when he doth nothing but cauil and trifle himself, and that without al wit, or reason, truth or likelihoode.

In the 5. demand of contradiction of heresies in their first arising, where I had shewed, how some fewe plausible errors of praier for the dead & to the dead Ar. 39 by litle and litle preuailed, without any great contradiction mentioned in Histories. Bristowe saith, It is a fonde parte to tell why and how a thing was done, which was neuer done. For the Scripture Es. 62. and August. Ep. 119. Cap. 19. affirme that there ne should be, ne was any such silence in the true pastors, &c. I answere both the Scripture and the Doctor speake of silence, which may bring present ouerthrowe of the Citie, or damnation of the Citizens. Otherwise the true pastors in Saint Augustines time, not only in silence passed, but by speache and writing allowed, the error of communicating of infants and the necessity thereof, as I hauehave shewed before. And seeing prayer for the deade and to the deade, by the holy Scriptures, are conuinced to be errors, it can be no iustifying of them to say, no man preached against them at their first rising. And seeing the Histories of the auncient time are very fewe and short, it is more boldlie affirmed, then p. 265soundly proued, that no man preached against them. Epiphanius doth not tell who preached against eueryevery heresie at the first arising thereof. And euen some of Origens heresies, of which Bristowe taketh example, slept almost 200. yeares in his bookes, before they were openly contradicted in the daies of Hieronyme, Ruffine and Augustine. Touching that I alledge of the mystery of iniquity working in the Apostles time. 2. Thess. 2. Bristowe chargeth me to say, that the Church of Christ wrought this mystery of iniquity, wherein he doth me open iniury: for I knowe it was Satan which wrought it, but yet in the Church where Antichrist should sitte, and not without it. He asketh whether my text say, There was no preaching against it. I answere my text saith, it was a mystery not reuealed, and therefore could not at the first be openly preached against. But Antichrist being openly shewed, was preached against by the two witnesses, Apoc. 11. although he were not espied in the first mystery of iniquity, yea when he was yet in fashioning he was preached against by Irenaeus, Pollycrates, and others Ar. 36. and in this book. Cap. 9.

The case of Cyprian and the Affricanes, being true pastors and yet contradicting the truth, and other true pastors denying that such as were baptised by heretikes were to be rebaptised, I hauehave clearely set down Pur. 413. but that Bristowe can do nothing but cauill.

Allens rule is of the first rising of the persons, wherevnto I require to be added that their opinion must also be newe, which if Bristowes blinde malice could hauehave seene, he needed not to hauehave painted his margent, with so many quotations, to proue that the true opinion was auncient and perpetuall.

Where I shewed Ar. 93. that the Pope in secret, & not by open contradiction, caused a most horrible blasphemous lake, called the Gospell of the holy Ghost, &c. written by the Friers to be priuily burned, for shaming their order, which continued. 55. yeares, without reprehension of the Pope, or any, but such as were accounted heretikes, Bristowe calling it fauourably, but a p. 266new scandalous booke, asketh what fault it was. Verely such a fault, as proued him to be more zelous of y^e glorie of beggerly friers, then of Christ and his Church, neither can it be shadowed by the example of Augustine, at the first forbearing the name of Pelagius, while there was hope of amendment in him, and he not throughly vnderstoode his heresie. But contrary wise the Pope fauoureth the blasphe…ous friers and condemneth their reprehenders for heretikes.

Where I saide, this was an argument from mans auctority negatiuely, & therfore nothing worth: No man preached against Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, at their first entry: therefore they are true. Bristow saith, it is according to the Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, that All heres…es hauehave b…ne preached against at their first entrie. Beside that he flitteth from errors to heresies, as though there were no difference betwene thē: those Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, are not yet shewed by which it may be apparant, what men and of what names, and in what time did openly preache against all heresies, at their first entrie, which is the thing that is vrged vponupon vsus. In the sixt demand which is of the name of Catholiques, where I saide he is a foolish Sophister, that reasoneth from names to the things. Bristowe saith he knoweth not in what Logike, I hauehave that axiome. He is a greate straunger in Aristotel, that knoweth not y^t a carcase, although he be called a man, yet is not a man in deede: moreouer he chargeth me to reason so my self in y^e seuenth demand, where indeed I do only deride the vaine kinde of reasoninge from the name to the thing, when the name is not rightly giuen, retorting the argument vponupon the Papists, who of vsus are called heretiks, as we are of them.

But Saint Augustine reasoneth of the name of the Catholique Church. Aug. in Psa Cont. Part. Donat. Dici…is, &c. You say that you be with me, but you see it is false, I am called Catholique, and you of Donates part: I aunswere Saint Augustine doth not by the only name of the Catholique Church, as a sufficient motiue, proue y^e p. 267Catholique Church, but by many other weighty reasons proueth that shee was iustly called so, because the question was betwene the Donatistes and the Church, not onelyonly of the Church, but euen of the name of Catholique.

Where I shewed Ar 6. that the Grecians are called Catholiques by as many Nations, as the Papists: Bristow hath nothing to replie, but that the heretike Grecians and Latines, do not mistake the person, when common talke and bookes call Catholique Latines, or Catholique Gr…cians: therefore they be true Catholiques. A miserable conclusion vponupon a false antecedent, for the Grecians by the name of Catholique Grecians, vnderstande enemies to the Pope, and by the name of heretikes Pap…sts, either Latines or reuolted Grecians.

That in publique edicts, by men of our side, papist… are called Catholiques, it is more then I knowe, or think to be true, although edicts penned by papists or neuters, call the papists Catholiques, as they call vsus, of the religion reformed, which appellations proue neither the one nor the other.

Where I compared the papists Ar. 67 glorying in the name of Catholique & Church, to the Infidel …ewes, criing: The temple of the Lorde, when they had made it … denne of theeues: Bristowe aunswereth, That our Lord… both in the Prophet Ier 7. and in the Gospell Math. 21. acknowledgeth it to be his Temple, although they in it were theeues and wicked persons. The place indeede had bene the Temple of God, and therefore Christ vsed his auctority as high Priest in purging it of corruptions, but of their making, it was not Gods Temple, but a den of theeues, except Bristowe will say that a denne of theeues may be Gods Temple. And although vntounto the godly, notwithstanding the corruptions, it was still the Temple of God, yet had not the vngodly the Temple of God, nor were in it, as in Gods Temple, but as in a theeuish denne, so are papists in the Catholique Church.

Where I said, supposing we were not called Catholique…, we should not be in worse case then Christ & his p. 268Apostles, who not only had not that name, but were of the Iewes (who were as rightly called Gods people, as the papists are called the Christian worlde) called heretikes and deceiuers. Bristowe biddeth me bate an ace of that, except I can shewe by predictions of the Prophets, the reprobation of the Christian worlde, in these daies, as they shew the reprobation of the Iewes in those daies. A wretched refuge, as though papists were only named the Christian worlde, or that the Iewes were reprobated in the time of Christes preaching, or the Apostles either, before the extreme obstinate refusing of the Gospell. Or as if it were not sufficient, to shewe the popish apostasie from the faith by those vndoubted notes, which the spirite speaking euidently doth giuegive of them. 1. Tim. 4. Beside this, Bristowe derideth me, for requiring the Iewes to vse those names which they neuer hearde of. And is Bristowe so well redde in the Scriptures, that the name of true Church was neuer hearde of the Iewes in his opinion, as for the name of Catholique I required it not of them, neither do I thinke we ought to be tried by the bare name of Catholique, seeing we beleeue not barely and simply the Catholique, but the holy, Catholique, and Apostolique Church. Which Church is not called Catholique, because it should be eueryevery where, (for that it neuer was, nor neuer shalbe) but because that wheresoeuer it be in parts, it is one bodie of Christ. But here Bristowe taketh me vp for haulting, charging me to be the first of all heretikes, that say it is called Catholica, because it is Vna: but he playeth his olde parts, for I say it is Catholique, because that being in diuerse parts, it is one, so that my reason is not only of vnitie but of vniuersality of the Church, which is Catholique in all the parts of it, being knitte in one, and not of being in eueryevery particular place of the worlde, nor at all times in most places of the worlde. And with this holy Catholique Church of the whole worlde, our Church doth and alwaies hath communicated, when it was not so openly nor abundantly spredde in so many Nations as it is now. And therefore Augustine in the place by Bristowe p. 269quoted Coll. 3. Die, &c. reproueth as well the Romane; as the Affricane Donatisme, whereinto Bristowe manifestly incurreth, when most impudently he affirmeth, that the olde fathers in their Creede, beleeuing one, holy, Catholique and Apostolique Church, meant the Romane Church, as though the vnity, holynes, vniuersality, and Apostolique foundation of Christs Church, were nothing but the Romish Church.

Where I proue, that the Popish Church is not in eueryevery part of the worlde, and therefore cannot be called Catholique, in that respect: Bristowe saith it is iumpe the argument of Cresconius, and referreth vsus for the answere to Saint Augustine. Con…. Cresc. Lib. 3. Cap. 63. but the aunswere is such, as he durst not sett it downe. For Augustine confesseth the Church is not called Catholique, because it is eueryevery where, (for it was not in all places in his time) but because it is to be dilated into all parts of the world, whereas the Donatists helde, it to be only in Affrica as the Papists only in a peece of Europa. And therfore it is false, that Bristow saith, both the interpretations of Catholique giuen by Saint Augustine De gen. ad Lit. imperf. Cap. 1. Because she is vniuersally perfect, and because she is spredde ouer all the worlde, agree to their mother Romish Babylon, for she hath nothing perfect, neither was she euer nor at this day is spreade ouer all the worlde, no not wh…re Christ is and hath long bene named in Grecia, Macedonia, Moscouia, Armenia, Persia, Assyria, A Ethiopia, &c. in most of which places are the Churches founded, euen by the Apostles themselues, and yet neuer subiect to the Romish faction. It is also false, that we renounce the latter, for we communicate with the Church of all Nations, that hath communion with Christ, and farther the Catholique Church doth not extende. As for the names of Church, Catholique, baptisme, heretike, schismatike, which he saith our Apostasie hath changed into congregation vniuersall, ablution, or washing, chuser, and cutter, it is a most grosse & sham…lesse lie, for although we may be hearde sometimes perhaps, and not often to p. 270interprete the Latine and Greeke tearmes, by English wordes, yet all that heare vsus. or reade our writinges, can testifie that we most commonly and vsually, yea daily and hourely vse the tearmes of Catholike, Church, and Baptisme Heretike, or Schismati…e, as often as occasion serueth to speake of those matters. As for the Greekish names of Priest, and Bishop, if they be vnderstoode, for such ministers, as Saint Paule meaneth by the names of foreign & foreign, we striue not for them. But when priest is taken for a Popish sacrificer, and Bishop for a Baptizer of belles, &c. we like the names no whit better, then the thinges. Otherwise it is not the …unde of wordes, that troubleth our eares, but the pestilent poyson that is hidde vnderunder such tearmes, which our heart abhorreth In the 7. demande of heretikes, where he chargeth me to affirme, that whosoeuer of true Christian… were called heretikes, without doubt are heretikes in deede: and therefore Aerus, Iouinianus and Vigilantius, so called and counted by true Christians, were heretikes in deede. Of Aerius there is no question, but he was an heretike, although not in that matter Bristowe meaneth. The errour of Iouinian we defende not: but Vigilantius, although baited by Hierome, was neuer generally condemned for an heretike. Howbeit, that which I spake but in de…ision, and imitation of the Popish manner of reasoning, Bristowe taketh it as though I had plainely affirmed, such a principle, which was farre from my purpose Hierome, and Ruffine, were both true Christians, yet either chargeth the other w^t he resie in their heat. And what wil Bristow say of the two general Councels of Constantinople the 6. & Nicen the 2? Will he not say they consisted of true Christians? Yet both the… doe call, account, and accu…se. Pope Honorius for an Heretike. Will Bristowe conclude, that therefore he proued so in deede? He dare not for his life. Hierome chargeth Pope Liberius with subscription of he…esie in Ca…al. Liberatus accuseth Pope Vig…us of Eutychianisme Cap 22. Yet Pope Syluerius by his Epistle, accu…seth his successor Pope Vigilius, yet are Hierome, p. 271Liberatus, & Syluerius commonly accounted for true Christians, and as for Liberius, & Vigilius, Bristow date not for both his eares say they were heretikes.

Where I saide, the Deuill stirred vp tyrantes, Heretikes, Popes, Saracenes, and Turkes to destroy y^e Church: Who (saith Bristowe) that counteth Popes to be heretikes, would so deuide? Verily he that counteth Popes to be in an higher degree of impietie, then particular heretikes, namely to be autors of Apostasie & Antichristes.

Where I obiect against this Popishe rule, that the true Christians were of the Arrians called, heretikes, Bristow asketh whether they were of the Arrians commonly called Heretikes? Yea verily, as commonly as we are of Papists. Bristow saith, if we should in our talke & writing, say heretikes simpliciter, as they doe, we could not be vnderstanded to speake of them. Yes in deede, as well as they among their owne, are vnderstood to speake of vsus. And what other thing is ment by the name of Papistes, but heretikes, and traitours, Antichristians, and Apostataes, enimies to God their Prince, & their country. In the 8. demande, beside that which is confuted in answer to the 3 motiue, he denieth, Franciscanes, Dominicanes, &c. to be sects, because a sect importeth a diuisiō. And i… there no diuision betweene secular, and spiritual, Nominal, & real, one sect & another? S. Paul cōplaineth, y^t Christ was diuided, whē one said I hold of Paul, & I of Apollos, & I of Cephas, & I of Christ. And howsoeuer you wil now extenuate your schoolebrals, & contrary sects, ech hath contended against other, as for y^e truth of Catholike religion, & against heresie, as y^e Dominicanes, & Franciscans, Scotists & Thomistes, that I speake nothing of y^e Guelphes, & Gibellines, the firebrands of y^e world, In y^e 9. demand (of y^e conuersion of Heathē nations) if sufficeth not Bris. y^e we hold y^e same Gospel, which is taught in the writings of y^e Apostles, which conuerted y^e first of al Heathen nations, y^t were conuerted to Christian faith: except wecan proue y^t y^e same nations are stil of our religion But he asketh, if we wil be tried by Affrike, (for example) whose religion we know by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, p. 272S. Augustine, Optatus, &c. Or if we hauehave any better moniments of any nations religiō, he biddeth me to name it, and let vsus trie it betweene vsus. How often hauehave I named the holy Scriptures, the best and the onelyonly true moniment, whereby we may trie what Gospell the Apostles preached, and into what faith they baptised the nations? And as for those whome you name for Affrike, although they testifie of some corruptions receiued and allowed in their time, yet I dare take them for triall of the greatest controuersies that are betweene vsus, of iustification by grace, and not by merite of workes, of the Popes antichristian supremacie, of the Lordes supper, of worshipping of images, and many other controuersies. As for that brabbling of conuerting of nations by them, or vsus, it is not worth the while, but a matter of meere contention, which can not be decided, but by triall whether they or we holde the true faith of the Gospell, for into that were all nations conuerted, that were turned by the true Apostles. As for the conuersion of any nation into false Christianitie, proueth not the conuerters to be Apostles. But Bristowe bragging of their wonderfull conuersion of nations of India and Affrica, (which no man reporteth, but lying Friers, and shamelesse Papistes) seemeth to denie, that any were conuerted vntounto false religion, by any false Apostles or Heretikes. And first, where I saide, there are people in Aethiopia, which, by circumcision and obseruation of the lawe, declare that they were conuerted by the false apostles: Bristowe opposeth the authoritie of Eusebius, reporting the conuersion of Aethiopia to hauehave beene of the right stampe, &c. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so smal a countrie, that it were not possible for one peece to be conuerted into true Christianitie, and another part into corrupt. That there are such people as I saide, Munster in his Geographie of Aethiopia, doth testifie. As for the fable of their Emperours submission, and the Abbots approbation of Poperie in all pointes, may serue to play mocke holiday among the Papistes, they can hauehave no credite among vsus. As great a mockerie it is, that Bristow p. 273abuseth the saying of Irenaeus, concerning the Church of Rome in his time, lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua &c. In which alwaies of them that are round about, hath bene kept that tradition or deliuerie of doctrine, which is from the Apostles. But the praise of the Romane Church of that time, is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time, which hath forsaken that tradition, and embraced newe doctrine, neuer heard of, from the Apostles daies, vntounto the time of Irenaeus.

Where I say it is manifest, that the nations of the Alanes, Gothes, and Vandales, were first conuerted by the Arrians: Bristowe replieth, that in so saying, I declare that I neuer read the ecclesiastical stories: such is Bristows Logike. It were possible I had read them, and forgotten them. But what could I either reade or remember in the places by him quoted? First, Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said, that Vlphilas Bishop of the Gothes assented to an Arrian or neutrall confession, giuen at Constantinople, whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus, which was Bishop of the Gothes, and being present in the Nicene Councel, had subscribed thereto, & he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice. First of y^e Alanes, & Vandales here is no word, nor in any of the places folowing; of the Gothes it is said, that Theophilus sometime their Bishop, was of right faith, and Vlphilas also, before his subscription, and consequently a fewe that were conuerted to Christianitie, before the heresie of Arius. But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Gothes, that was conuerted, and of the second also, lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted? There were two nations of the Gothes, the one gouerned by Phritigernes, y^e other by Athanarichus: Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus, sought aide of Valens the Arrian Emperor, and obtaining it, put Athanarichus to flight. Quae causa fuit &c. Which was the cause (saith Socrates) that verie manie of the Barbarians receiued the Christian faith. For Phritigernes, that he might shewe him selfe thankefull for his benefite receiued of the Emperor, beganne to embrace his religion, p. 274and to exhort his people to doe the same. And for that cause manie Gothes which then to please the Emperors humour, had addicted them selues to the Arrian sect, vntounto this time cleaue fast vntounto it. At the same time V…phil…s Bishop of the Gothes inuented the Gothian letters, and as soone as he had turned the holie Scripture into their tongue, he purposed that the barbarous people should learne the holie Oracles of God. But as soone as Vlph…las had taught the Christian religion, not onelyonly to them which obeyed Phritigernes, but also to them that were vnderunder Athanarichus, the same Athanarichus mouing persecution, put to death diuers of the Arrian sect. &c.

The same historie rehe…rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion. At verò non istam &c. But truely I doe not thinke, that this was the onelyonly cause, whie the whole nation of the Gothes vntounto this time, is adioyned to the Arrians: but y^t Vlphilas their bishop, although in the beginning he dissented nothing from y^e Catholike Church: yet afterward in the reigne of Constantius, through lacke of knowledge, he was present at the Councel held at Constantinople, with Eudoxius and Acacius, which were of the number of Bishops that had bene in the Nicen Councel. And so being become an Arrian, separated the whole nation of Gothes frō the Catholike faith. This storie sheweth, that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conuersion of the Gothes: for Vlphilas the Bishop of those fewe, that were before that time christened, being long before peruerted into Arrianisme, was the principall cause of turning both the nations vntounto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme. But Theodoret, …aith Bristowe, lib. …. ca. 37. Who was a Catholike Bishop, of purpose to take from the Arrians that vaine bragge of theirs, sheweth that the Gothes were first Catholikes, and not as you say, first conuerted by the Arrians: but only by false informations, & too much trusting of their bishop Vlphilas, being an other Balaam lead out of the way. This purpose Bristowe dreameth of, for no such appeareth in his wordes cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium &c: But my thinke I shall do a thing worth the labour, if I shal shew to them p. 275that knowe not, howe the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians. And then sheweth that by persuasion of Eudoxius. Vlphilas which was the Bishop of those Gothes, which before were lightened with the beames of diuine knowledge, entred into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens, and so deceiued the whole nation. Where Theodoret saith nothing contrarie to other histories, which shewe y^t Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Gothes that was vnderunder him vntounto Arrianisme, and after Vlph…las turned the other nation, y^e was vnderunder Athanarichus, vntounto the same corrupt forme of Christianitie, sauing y^t he is contrarie to Socrates and Sozomenus, which affirme y^t Vlphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Councel of Constantinople, in the daies of Constantius which reigned before Valens manie yeres. That I said of them that were conuerted by the Nouatians and Donatists, Purg. 337. Bristow vnderstā deth of whole nations, & requireth my histories & autors to proue that I said not. If Bristowe will say, y^t none from Paganisme were conuerted to Christianitie by y^e Nouatians, Donatistes, or other heretikes, I wil see what I hauehave in store to proue it.

The conuersion of the Moscouites by the Grecians, Bristowe asketh whether it were before their schisme or after, and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation, and not in time of their schisme.

I reade the conuersion of the Moscouites, to hauehave ben into the Greekish forme of Christianitie, An. Do. 987. Ioachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo. about which time, the controuersie of y^e proceeding of the holy Ghost, began to arise, but long before, the Greeke Church refused subiection to the Church and Pope of Rome, which if you call but an emulation, you ouerthrow y^e rocke of your owne religion, & breake off y^e band of your vnitie, which you affirme to cōsist only in subiection to y^e Romish bishop.

In the 11. Demaund, of Brittanie, where I saide the Actes of the Apostles is the best monument to shewe, into what faith as well this Island, as all other nations were conuerted by the Apostles: Bristowe asketh, Whether the p. 276Actes of the Apostles were written to shewe into what faith all nations were conuerted, that were turned by the Apostles? Yea verily: they were written to shewe that the Apostles preached the same faith vntounto the Iewes and Gentiles, which they receiued of Christ according to the holie Scriptures: and thereof the b…oke is called foreign, the practise of the Apostles, according to such instruction as thei receiued of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelue Apostles, preaching to any nation of the Gentiles? There is mention of the twelue Apostles preaching to the Iewes, and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles, although it was neither possible, nor needfull, nor conuenient, that they should all twelue in person goe to eueryevery nation. But what faith so euer any one preached to any nation, the same did they all preach without difference in euerie nation, that they conuerted. There is not one of the articles of the Creede necessarie to saluation, but it is to be proued by the Actes of the Apostles, that they did preach it. But Bristowe wil tell vsus an other cause, why that booke was written. No sir (saith he) that booke was written to shewe, onelyonly the beginning of the Church (according to the prophets) to wit, at Ierusalē, & among the Iewes, and the taking of it from them for their deserts, and giuing it to the Gentiles, euen from Ierusalem the head of the Iewes, to Rome the head of the Gentiles. If this were the only purpose of the Euangelist, (as Bristowe most impudently affirmeth) he should hauehave spared much labour in setting foorth the sermons, and summe of the doctrine, which the Apostles preached both to the Iewes and Gentiles. But let vsus heare Bristowe goe forward. And there Saint Luke endeth it, not caring to tell, so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paule (in whose person this translation was wrought, and not in S. Peters for causes too long to be here rendered) Thou must stand before the Emperor. Because his purpose was no more, but to shewe the newe Ierusalem of the Christians, and so to leade them to it, to knowe what are the particulars that the Apostles taught. If this be true, all the testimonie and report that he maketh of their doctrine, was beside his purpose: yea, p. 277the historie of the gospell which he writ of all things, that Iesus beganne to do and teach, was out of this purpose. And he tooke the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus, to teach him the certaintie of those things wherof he had bene instructed, as Saint Luke him selfe had receiued of the Apostles them selues, whereas according to Bristowes imaginatiue purpose, seeing there had ben manie writings of the gospel alreadie, he should hauehave sent him home to the newe Ierusalem of the Christians, and so hauehave left him to it, to knowe what are the particulars the Apostles taught. But where on gods name learne wee, that whore of Babylon that sitteth vponupon the seuen hilles, Apoc. 17. to be this newe Ierusalem on earth? when S. Paul. Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly Ierusalem, vntounto the heauenly Ierusalē which is aboue, and is the mother of vsus all: not to an other Ierusalem on earth, and that the mother of all abhominations of the earth. Apoc. 17. And howe falleth it out, that S. Luke hauing a purpose, so long and certainely continued, and so necessarie for the Church, not in one word commendeth to vsus this newe Ierusalem, on the seuen hils, nor in one word maketh mention of that, which only changeth (if any thing can chaunge hell into heauen) Rome into Ierusalem, namely the translation of Peters chaire or his person, or the least haire of his head, or thred of his garment to Rome? But this belike is reserued among the Apocriphal causes; as these are, why the translation was in the person of S. Paule, and not of S. Peter.

Where I required one of those nations, to whome the Apostles preached purgatorie or praier for the dead, to be named out of the Actes of the Apostles: Bristowe answereth, continuing his former speach: And so withall you hauehave one of those nations named; and that no common one, to wit, the Romanes, which receiued of the Apostles not only that article you require, but all the rest which at this time it hath, &c. When this is shewed out of the Actes of the Apostles, or any other Canonical scripture, I am answered. Where I require it to be proued, that the same Apostle which first conuerted Britanie, taught praiers or sacrifice for the deade: p. 288Bristowe answereth, If you require vsus to proue it out of the Scripture, considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conuersion you declare your selfe to be but a pratler. At the least wise you declare, that you cannot proue it out of y^e scriptures. But we can proue out of y^e scriptures, eueryevery article y^t we beleeue, to hauehave bene taught by y^t Apostle or Apostolike man, whosoeuer first preached the saith of Christ in this lande, although our landes conuersion be not by name mentioned in scripture. Yet seeing the doctrine of euerie one of y^e Apostles was the same y^t is expressed in y^e scriptures, we are able to proue, that he preached the same which we beleue, considering y^t we beleue al that is written in the holy scriptures. As for y^e confirmation of Eleutherius, which Bristowe saith was an accomplishing of y^t which was begun by y^e Apostles & Romanes, if he meane of a supply of doctrine, it is false: for Christianitie hauing bene in Brittanie planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius, and continued more then a 100. yeares before Eleuthe…ius; was perfect Christianitie. To passe ouer y^t pe…ke of troubles, in which Bristow placeth me, because I do quietly cōfesse, y^t Augustine brought much superstitiō into this Island, & yet: not the whole substance of Poperie, but the principal & most necessarie grounds of Christianitie: where I affirmed y^t in many things the faith & religion of the old Saxons, was contrarie to y^t the Papists now do hold, as by diuers monuments of antiquitie may be proued, Bristowe with a double negatiue, would hauehave it seeme impossible, Because in S. Bedes storie, and in all his workes▪ &c. we find nothing against the Pope, nor against any one point of his doctrine. What I hauehave found in S. Bedes storie, and other monuments of the Saxons religion, I hauehave set forth in confutation of Stapletons Fortresse. As for that printed Saxon Homily; which is against real presence & transubstantiation, which Bristowe saith, was so soone & so diligently called in againe, it is abroad in y^e hands of many▪ neuer called in, that euer I heard of, but hath since the first setting forth of it, bene printed three or foure times, in Maister Foxes booke of Actes and Monumentes.

p. 279In the tenth and twelfth Demands of Miracles and visions, where I had cited the admonition of the Apostle, 2. Thessalon. 2. that the comming of Antichrist should be in all lying signes and wonders: Bristowe asketh me, what Scripture telleth me, that after the reuelation of Antichrist, there shall be none but feigned miracles? Wheras I inferred no such thing vponupon the text, but shew euen that which he blameth me not to hauehave shewed, howe to knowe seigned miracles from vnfeigned, namely by the doctrine which they are saide to confirme, according to the Scripture. Deut. 13.

Where I saide, that Augustine De vnit. eccle. cap. 16. will allowe no miracles and visions for sufficient proofes, without the authoritie of Scriptures: Bristowe saith, I doe shamefully abuse my reader, for he saith expressely, What so euer such thinges are done in the Catholike Church, therefore they are to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholike Church. Yea sir, but it followeth that the Church is not shewed to be Catholike, because such things are done, but as he saith there and else where, onelyonly by the Scriptures. But Bristowe will hauehave me allowe all the miracles that Saint Augustine speaketh of, because they were done in the Catholike Church. As though Saint Augustine made that the sufficient cause to allowe any thing that was done or saide to be done, without ioyning that they were done to confirme the Catholike faith, Cyprians miracles could not iustifie his error. In the Popish Church, the sectes of Dominicanes and Franciscanes in their dissention, about the Conception of the virgin Marie, boasted both of their miracles, yet Bristowe will not I weene allowe both their miracles, except he will allowe both their opinions, which were contradictorie. Againe, many things are feigned, euen in the Catholike Church by peruerse zeale, to confirme truth, as y^e historie of Paule and Tecla, confessed by a Priest of Asia Tert. de bapt. Neither wil Bristow I thinke defend, y^t al y^e miracles contained in the Alcoran of Frances, Vitas patrum, Legend… …rea, dormi securè, sermones discipuli promptuariū exemplorum, p. 280Festiual, and liues of so manie Saints as are written, be all true, and none feigned, although they all serue to proue Poperie. Wherefore it may be, that euen some of those miracles that S. Augustine doth report, might of emulation and vnordered zeale be feigned by some Catholikes, to winne credite to the Church, against heretikes. That Luther and Caluine whome he affirmeth, not able to heale a lame horse, attempted wonders, it is as impudent a lie, and grosse forgerie, as that Li…danus telleth, that Luther was begotten of the diuell. And yet there be diuers horseleaches among the Protestants, that hauehave healed more lame horses then euer S. Loy did, either when he liued, or since he was worshipped of the Papistes as an excellent horseleach.

Passing ouer 5. Demandes, which he doth only name: In the 18. of destroying idolatrie, he saith, that to all that he said, I say nothing, but like a cuckowe: You hauehave not destroied idolatrie, but set vp idolatrie, not waying (saith Bristowe) that I tell him according to the Prophets, that we hauehave throughly conuerted all nations from idolatrie, that we hauehave made them forget also the names of their idols. In deede, that which Bristow telleth me, is of great weight, and therefore I am belike to blame, to wey it no more but as bare wordes without matter, and winde without reason or authoritie. Otherwise I thinke I hauehave proued, that the Papistes hauehave conuerted fewe nations from Paganisme, and them whome they hauehave turned, they hauehave rather chaunged the idols, then taken away the idolatrie, or rather the verie names, then the idols themselues, seeing there was neuer an idol almost among the Gentiles, but they retaine the idolatrie, vnderunder the name of one Saint or other. They had Castor and Pollux, you hauehave Loy and George: they had Februa or Febris, you hauehave Fiacre: that which Iuno Lucina was to their women, y^e virgine Marie is to yours. &c.

In the 19 Demaund of Kings and Emperors, Bristowe saith, that although I chalenge the Kings of the first 600 yeares, to be of our religion, yet I bring no proofe at all, as though the proofe of the doctrine of saluation receiued in that time, which we hold, is no proofe at all. But I p. 281… not aunswered so much, as that Allen alledgeth, …we Constantinus receiued the sentence of the priestes … at Nice, as pronounced of God. What neede any …were to this? we honour it likewise. But Bristowe such, I confesse there was praier for his soule, according … the error of his time. And he addeth, that there was … for his soule, with intercession of the Apostles, in …ose honour it was offered at their reliques and their …mple, and all by procurement of Constantinus him selfe. Euseb. in vita Const. lib 4. cap. 58. 59. 60. 66. 71. First cap. 58. there is nothing, but that Constantine builded a Church, which should be called the memorie of the Apostles: Cap. 59. followeth the description of the same Church and his intent, that the memorie of Christes Apostles by that sumptuous building, should be continued alwaies among all nations: Cap. 60. his purpose is shewed, that he being buried there, might be made partaker of the praiers, that should be there made in the honour of the Apostles: meaning the praiers made to God, which manie moued by deuotion of that glorious memorie of the Apostles, should make: Cap. 66. is nothing but a description of a magnificent funerall pompe prepared: Cap. 71. are those praiers which the people made for his soule y^t I spake of, and beside that foreign &c. The tombe of the thrise happie soule, beautified with the name of the Apostles, and adioined to the people of God, and made worthie of the diuine ceremonies and mysticall liturgie or seruice, and inioining the communion of holie praiers. But of sacrifice for his soule, with the intercession of the Apostles, in whose honour it was offered, at their reliques, there is no word: although by any figure you vnderstand the Emperors tombe whereof he speaketh, to signifie his soule, which is rather a rhetoricall exornation, shewing howe his tombe was honoured, as cap. 67. he sheweth that all the princes of the armie, and the Senate, worshipped his dead bodie, euen as they did when he was aliue: which vaine pompe, he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God, to be giuen to the Emperors. But in effect you can shewe p. 282no more of Constantius fauouring of your religion, but in that one error of praying for the dead: to which I oppose his commandement, laide vponupon Metriades bishop of Rome, to heare the cause of Cecilianus, E…seb. lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Councel de lit. Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeale from the bishop of Rome, and other like matters, shewing his souereigne authoritie ouer y^e bishop of Rome and other Prelates. I said, that although Theodoret report, that Theodosius the younger, praied for his parents foules, yet the storie saith not, that he praied to Saint Chry so stome for them. Bristow opposeth the Tripartite storie, and Theodoret in Latine lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter, & 36. where Theodoret in his owne words speaking of the tombe of Chrysostome, saith of Theodosius, foreign : He setting vponupon the tombe, both his eyes and forehead, offered a supplication for his parents, desiring pardon for them, that had done iniurie of ignoraunce. These wordes inforce not praier to Saint Chrysostome, although praier to the dead, was at that time erroniously practised. That Allen citeth out of Ambrose, of Honorius standing by the holie altars, while the solemnitie of his fathers funerall was celebrated, maketh little to proue Honorius to hauehave bene a Papist, although in that point I denie not (which can not yet of those wordes be proued) that he might be occupied in praier for the deade, according to the errour of his time. One errour can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith, who is knowne to hauehave bene of that religion which Ambrose setteth foorth in his writings, contrarie to Papistrie, in the most, and most necessarie pointes vntounto saluation. The 40. dayes minde, which Allen would begge out of that place, to resemble their Popish monethes minde, I hauehave sufficiently reproued, by shewing the continuance of the fourtie daies solemnitie, without intermission. That the last day was one of the fourtie, and kept with singular solemnitie (as is vsuall in such cases) which Bristowe opposeth, can not make a iust resemblance p. 283of the Popish mone thes mindes, which are a renouation of a mourning or solemnitie intermitted. Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the generall desection, to hauehave bene of our religion: Bristowe in a lurious rage, noteth in the margent, Sce the impudent heretike, them whome he condemned before. But who is this impudent heretike, that condemned those Christian Emperors before? or where is there any word of their condemnation? Is there no difference betweene reprouing of an errour, and condemuing of the person? But let that passe among Bristowes impudent and malicious slaunders. The Kings of the earth (saith he) hauehave not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon, when they humblie adored the Church of Rome, and licked the dust of her feete, as they are commaunded by the Prophet. Esai. 49. 60. &c. This shall be confessed when it is proued, that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christe, and not the strumpet of Babylon, although the Prophet speake not of bodily bowing, kissing, or licking. Where I name Ziska & Procopius, and George king of Bohemia defenders of y^e Protestants: Bristow saith, it was an 100. yeares before the name, & much more the religiō of y^e Protestants was coined, as though their religiō might not be before y^t name was vsed to cal thē by? But y^t Edward y^e third was a Wicleuist, who euer heard? saith Bristow. And who euer heard me say or write, that he was a Wicleuist? I saide, Ar. 34 y^t king Edward & other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause: and for y^t you may read at large M. Foxes storie of Wickleue. Cōcerning the booke of Caro lus Magnus, against images, I hauehave aunswered Sander & Bristowe else where. The booke of Berttam is entituled ad Carolum magnum, although Trithemius say, it was vntounto Charles y^e king, brother of Lotharius, y^e antiquitie of which inscription, is elder then Trithemius, except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation. But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fansie, & durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence & transubstantiation, therefore Charles y^e King or Emperor did hold this opinion. He y^t will read y^e booke, shal see he doth plainly expresse p. 284his iudgement, against the corporall presence, and as for transubstantiation, there was no question thereof in his time.

In the 21. Demaund of Churches, where I say the Papistes had wonne no more, if we could shewe neuer a Church, but such as hauehave bene builded by Papistes, and to Popish vses, then the idolaters against the Apostles, which could shewe no temples, but builded vntounto idols: Bristowe saith, the challenge were not one, because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion, we renounce Popish religion, but not all their Churches. The cause wh…e the Apostle renounced their temples, was for that manie of them were not for the vse of Christian religion, although if credite may be giuen to our countrie histories, the Pagans temples were conuerted to Christian Churches, both by y^e Brytons & Saxons. But those conuerters, saith Bristowe, were the founders of them: be it so, yet were they not the builders of them. Yet such as were builded by Christian princes, were builded that their soules might be praied for in them, as that Church of the twelue Apostles builded by Constantine the great, whereof mention is before &c. Of so manie Chruches as he builded, onelyonly in building that one, he had that erronious conceit. Where I say, the olde Churches were builded onelyonly in the honor of God, and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures, Saints, and Angels: Marie wellymet, quod Bristowe: They were called Basilicae Martyrum & Apostolorū, the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches, &c. Ergo, They were not builded to the honour of God onelyonly, but to the honour of creatures, when the olde writers whome I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirme, that a temple belongeth onelyonly to God. And Augustine expresly denieth, that they were the temples, but the memories of those Martyrs, whose names they bare, and as foraltars, he vtterly denieth them vntounto creatures.

Where I said, that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome: Bristowe crieth, blessing on Iouinian. Whie Bristowe, Was there neuer any Bishop of Rome married? Was there no priest married p. 285in Hierome and Augustines time, although Iouinian could not persuade anie priest which had purposed continencie to marrie? To that I saide of manie of the Cathedrall Churches in England, builded for preachers and their wiues to dwell in, Bristowe saith, I hauehave wonne a whetstone as bigge as a mountaine, but against the authoritie of the histories, Ranulph. Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens. and other which I cited, Bristow bringeth nothing, but railing in filthie termes, meete for the colledge of Cardinals life, & not for the holie estate of matrimonie.

Where I shewe the differing forme of the chauncels & altars of the auncient Churches, with crosse yles from the latter Popish erections: Bristowe maketh me a souden proctor of theirs, as though a chauncel and altar, a crosse barre, might not be named but by a Papist. Yea, he maketh me contrarie to my selfe, for saying that Popish chauncels, which are at the East end of Churches, are but late additions: and sanctifieth, that we can abide no chauncels, no crosse yles, no length to the East, &c. of which things we make small account, either to hauehave thē, or to be without them. But it is more materiall, that he saith, Cōstantinus had tabernaculum crucis, a tabernacle or moucable Church of the crosse, wheras we can abide no crosse or roode in our Churches, Euseb. in vit. Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56, Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places shewe, that in his warres he vsed to hauehave a tent or tabernacle, as a Church, for praier and ministration of the sacraments: the first place onelyonly calleth it tabernaculum crucis, which might be of y^e forme; but of any crosse that was in it, there is no mention, and much lesse of a rood, which is a crosse with an image on it. As for the crosse which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola, saith was kept in the Church of Ierusalem, worshipped by the Bishop and the people, if it were true, yet it proueth not creeping to the crosse on Good Friday, as Bristow saith, for there might be worshipping without creeping, or Popish worshipping either. Againe, worshipping of that same crosse that Christ died on, proueth not creeping to p. 286any idol of it. Finally, where he would proue out of Paulinus and Beda, the multitude of altars in one Churche, he laboureth in vaine. Eusebius whome I cited, is cleare both of the vnitie of the altar in his time, and of the manner of standing, which was not after the popish manner. Of like wisedome it is, that he will not allowe me to talke of chalices of wood and glasse, because I say their vestiments be as good stuffe as their chalices, which the olde Church knewe not. Thereof he chargeth me not … hauehave-read in Theodoret, lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra &c. Holie cope wouen with golden threads, which Consta…tinus gaue to the Bishop of Ierusalem, that he might weare it, when he did baptise. Yes I hauehave read it, but I spake of an elder Church then Constantines time, in which such pompe was not vsed. And yet that robe is lewdly translated of Bristowe a cope. Although neither the Papists in baptisme, hauehave alwaies, or ordinarily worne a cope. The rest that he citeth, out of antiquitie for gorgeous attire, and golden chalices, partly is false, and partly superfluous. For Ornatus, is by him translated into ornaments. Valens commended Saint Basil, Quòd tanto ornatu támque decenter &c, that with so great comelinesse and so decently, he exercised his priestlie office. Againe, Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 21. sheweth that Chrysostomes priestes taken by force in ornatu vt erant, in their attire as they were, which was but a white garment, as appeareth by diuers places of Chrysostome in Matth. Hom. 85. &c. Likewise he asketh whether there were such neede for redeeming captiues, building of Churches, or that requies defunctorum might be at the buriall of the deade, that chalices were broken and solde, seeing Ambrose alloweth, but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices. As though Ambrose spake of buying of Trentals of Masses, with the price of the chalices, where he saith, Off. lib. 2. cap. 28. Nemo potest dolere, quia in sepulturis Christianor…n requies defunctorum est. No man can be griened, because in the buriall of Christians, the rest of the deade is. Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of buriall, which is y^e third cause, Nemo potest indignari &c. No man can be angrie, p. 287because the spaces are enlarged, for burying of the reliquijs fidel…um, the bodies of the faithfull. Yet he asketh, if I be not ashamed, to cite such places of antiquitie, seel hate chalices, because they be chalices, and because they be consecrated? Whereas I saide nothing against the necessarie vse of cuppes in the Communion, but of the superstitious pompe of the Papistes in their golden chalices, and idolatrous manner of consecrating them: while they suffer the poore to sterue for lacke of necessarie susten…nce, but once againe most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say, that the sacred chalice is called there a vessell of our Lordes bloud, and golde in which our Lordes bloud is powred: where he speaketh of breaking the cuppes, before they be solde, least they should offensiuely be abused to wicked purposes. But there, saith he, is not any such worde of them, and in the middest of the chapter, where these wordes are, they are not spoken of the materiall cuppe, but of the godlie vse of them, when they are solde to redeeme captiues, aunswering the obiection of such thinges, that be once dedicated to Gods seruice. Ille verus est thesaurus Domini &c. That is a true treasure of the Lorde, which worketh that which his bloud wrought. Then I acknowledge a vessell of the Lordes bloud, when I see redemption in both, that the cup may redeeme from the enimie, them whome the bloud hath redeemed from finne.

And againe, Agnosco infusum auro &c. I acknowledge the bloud of Christe powred into the golde, not onelyonly to hauehave made it redde, but also to hauehave imprinted in it the vertue of diuine operation, by the gift of redemption. Such golde the holie Martyr Laurence reserued to the Lord, &c.

But seeking to giuegive the Papistes a blowe, Bristowe saith, I care not though the stroke light vponupon the Primitiue Church, which had vessels of gold, not onelyonly in these princely buildings erected by Constantine &c: but also in y^e crypts or caues of y^e earth, in time of persecutiō. How Ambro…e and Acacius vsed, & thought these goldē vessel… p. 288best bestowed, I hauehave shewed. But in the persecution time, howe proueth Bristowe they had such plentie of golde and siluer? Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet, who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence, and r… quiring the treasures of the Church, as the cups of gol…e and siluer in which they did sacrifice, and set their waxe candles. But what answere did Laurence the Deacon returne, what chalices or candlestickes did he render, but the poore that were relieued by the aimes of the Church and sale of the golden vessels, if they had any, as witnesseth S. Ambrose in the place before cited?

Where I affirme, the auncient Churches were without images, because the tempse of God, and images can not agree &c. Bristowe saith, I may roll in such rhetorike before fooles, that receiue our absurde principles, to wit, That the idols of the Pagans, were images of the Christians. But thinketh Bristowe, that any of our auditors is so foolish, to beleeue so absurde a principle, as he is malitious in feigning vsus to affirme such an impossible paradoxe? I am sure, it neuer entred into the opinion of any preacher, to imagine, that the idols of the Pagans were the images of Christians. But this we say, that Popish images, although they be not the same that were the images of y^e Heathen, yet they are as abhominable idols as theirs, & the worshipping of them as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshipping of the images of the Gentiles, and for proofe of that, neither you, nor Sander shall euer finde me non plus, as you say you make me, by denying y^t absurd principle, which is of your owne fantasticall imagination, and not of our ignorant and vnlearned affirmation, as you feigne it. As touching our liuings, we are nothing discouraged by the storie of Ambrose de Basilicis tradendis, but that we may enioie them with a better conscience, then you compare vsus, with the Arrians, and our most Christian Prince, to the Arrian Empresse.

In the 22. Demaund of seruice of the Church, howe vainly he affirmeth the seruice of the primitiue Church, to be the same that the Popish Church now hath, because p. 289two errors of praier for the dead, and to Saintes, were in the olde Church, of three or foure hundreth yeares after Christ, I will not tarie to declare. But where I note out of S. Augustine, affirming that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs: seeing praier is a sacrifice, that therefore it ought to be offered only to God: and that Martyrs were not called vponupon in the time of the sacrifice, but onelyonly named for remembrance: Bristowe to proue that they were called vponupon, contrarie to the expresse wordes of Augustine, citeth Augustine, Tract in Ioan. 84. speaking of the blessed Martyrs: Non sic eos commemoramus &c. We doe not so rehearse them, as other that rest in peace, that we also pray for them, but rather y^t they may pray for vsus, that we may cleaue to their steppes. These words proue not, that they did in publike seruice call vponupon the Martyrs with solemne praiers, but onelyonly interpret, what Augustine supposed the meaning of the publike liturgie to be, in that place, where the Martyrs were named among other that are in rest, for whome they did pray, as appeareth more plainely, by the other place, which Bristowe quoteth De verb. Apost. 17. Perfectio tamen, &c Yet there is some kinde of perfection in this life, vntounto which the holie Martyrs are come. Therfore the Ecclesiasticall discipline hath that which the faithfull doe knowe, when the Martyrs are rehearsed in that place at the altar of God, where praier is not made for them; but for the rest of the departed, that are rehearsed, praier is made. For it is an iniurie to pray for a Martyr, by whose praiers we ought to be commended. Note also in the former sentence, that they praied for them that did rest in peace; therefore they praied not for deliuerance out of purgatorie, where they are saide to be in paine without rest. The other places, which he noteth, of priuate persons praying to Saints, proueth not, that such praier was vsed in the publike seruice of the Church, which although perhaps it were not syncere in all points, yet was it much elder, than the error of inuocation of Saintes. Where I note that no sacrifice was to be offered vntounto Martyrs: Bristowe saith, it is to be vnderstoode, of externall sacrifice, p. 290as though the Christians had any but eucharisticall or of prosperities But admitting his distinction of externall and internall sacrifice, howe are the Gentiles answered by Saint Augustine, that we worship not Saintes as Gods, when we offer spirituall sacrifice to them, which is most proper to God, which is a spirit, and challengeth the spirituall worship vntounto him selfe? You might as well graunt them externall temples, as spirituall sacrifice, and much rather. For if they must hauehave spirituall and internall sacrifice, they must hauehave a spirituall and internal temple, wherein and vponupon which, it must be offered; which is all one, as if you will dispossesse the holy Ghost of his temple, and set vp an other altar in mans heart, to offer vp sacrifice vntounto Martyrs therevpon. But Bristowe, as it were, giuing ouer his former distinction, saith praier to Saintes, is no more a sacrifice to Saintes, then those dishes of meate, which of some Christians were superstitiously brought into the Churches, as Augustine sheweth, to be sanctified by the merites of the the Martyrs, de ciuit. lib. 8. cap 27. But the Prophet saith, A troubled spirite, (which sendeth foorth praiers) is a sacrifice vntounto God, Psal. 51. and therefore ought not to be offered to creatures; and Psal. 140. he desireth, that his praier may be as incense, & the euening sacrifice, &c.

Concerning ceremonies, he chargeth me to refuse al, by mine argument of authoritie of Gods worde negatiuely, and yet in other wordes to allowe some. Who so will conferre the places, shall easily see his witlesse and senselesse cauelling. I refuse all superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies, but the word of God alloweth such as are necessarie for order and decencie, not hindering, but furthering edification. The order of seruice and ministration, which Iustinus describeth the Church to hauehave vsed, containeth a summe of all that we vse in our liturgie. Bristowe saith, it is the summe of the Masse also, and there is water mingled with wine, plaine against the Communion booke. As for the mingling of water with wine, howe proueth he, that it is named as a necessarie ceremonie vsed in that time, and not rather to declare, how soberly the Christians vsed wine in those meetinges, which were so malitiously slaundered? But if it were a ceremonie, what hath it contrarie to the communion booke, which although it require no more then Christ vsed, yet it forbiddeth not the addition of water, if any necessarie occasion doe require it? But I would faine see the masse disciphered out of that description of Iustine, which Bristowe saith, is the verie summe of the masse. Vnlesse Fulke be so foolish to thinke, saith he, that the Bishoppes sermon, the receiuing of all present, the carying of it to them that be absent, the rich mens offering may not to be omitted in any masse, or for any cause. What so euer may be vsed or omitted at any masse, or for any cause, I am not so wise, that I knowe, nor so carefull that I desyre to knowe. But is Bristowe so madde, to make any indued with reason to thinke, that Iustinus describeth, that which was seldome or neuer vsed among them, rather then that which was vniformely obserued in all their meetinges?

But out of the scripture I reason affirmatiuely reiecting all the beggerly ceremonies of poperie, because God is to be worshipped in spirite & truth, and yet in an other place, I admit som furniture: therefore (saith Bristowe,) that I hauehave misused this text, with much babbling to little purpose. Mine answere is, that although some external rites, are necessarie for order and decencie, yet the true and proper worshippe of God, is onelyonly in spirite and veritie, and consisteth not in externall rites, no not when they are best vsed.

Secondly, against popishe lessons, responses, versicles, lewde lyes and vncertaine tales, read and songe as Gods seruice: &c. I alledged Mathewe, 15. In vaine doe they worship me &c. Here he taxeth mine ignorance in the scripture saying, that the precepts of men are those which be of men and not of GOD. And are not lewde lyes, and vncertaine tales such? yea, all your vaine distinctions of popish seruice: for which you cannot shewe any one commaundement of GOD, nor allowance of the Godly Church, but of p. 292the synagogue of Sathan, which your beggerly Logike craueth in this aunswere, to be taken for the Catholike Church of Christ. After this he chargeth me, to falsifie the Councel of Laodicea cap. 59. when I say it decreed, That nothing should be song or read in the Church, but the Canonicall bookes of the holie Scripture. VntoUnto which accusation, I aunswere, that I gaue the summe of the Councel, truely and without any falsification. That nothing should be read in the Church beside the Canonicall bookes of the Scripture, which are there named, Bristowe confesseth, and the wordes of the Canon are plaine. This is sufficient to ouerthrowe Popish lessons, where of nine, most commonly not one is of the Scripture. But Bristowe will make three Councels of Carthage, ca. 47. to expound this Canon of Laodicea, where it is commaunded that nothing be read vnderunder the name of the diuine Scriptures, but only the Canonical Scriptures. If this exposition were allowed, yet Popish seruice is not discharged; for therein, the Machabees and other Apocryphall Scriptures, which the Councel of Laodicea doth reiect, are read as the diuine Scriptures. And as for matters to be soung, the Councel reiecting Psalmes made by vnskilfull persons, meaneth to admit none but either the Psalmes and Hymnes of the Scripture, or at least, such as are consonant vntounto them: and therefore would neuer hauehave admitted that blasphemous versicle, or what the diuel so euer you call it: Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos, Christe, scandere, quò Thomas ascendit. By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend, Make vsus, Christ, to climbe whither Thomas did ascend. Nor a great number of such, not onelyonly vnlearned songs, but wicked and hereticall ditties, that are contained in your Popish portuise.

Where I said, the festiuall daies were kept of the primitiue Church, not in honour of the Saints, as they are of the Papistes, but only for the memorie of the Martyrs, &c. to imitation: Bristowe opposeth a saying of Augustine, which to imitation addeth consociation to the merites, and aide of their praiers. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. As p. 293for fellowship of their worthinesse, is the fruit of imitation, the helpe of their praiers, is a smacke of that declining time, which Bristowe alwaies obtrudeth to vsus, as the onelyonly primitiue Church, which I vnderstand for the first Church of the Apostles, and that which was most auncient next vntounto them.

Where I cite out of Augustine, de ver. rel. cap. 55. that Saints and Angels were of Christians in his time honoured, with louelove, not with seruice; for imitation, not for religion: First Bristowe asketh, whether he doth not expressely here auouch their honouring? Yes verily, and as expressely he denieth that they are to be honoured with seruice of religion. But seruitus with Bristowe, is not the Latine of the Greeke word Dulia, it is but mine vnacquaintance is Saint Augustines writings. If mine acquaintance in S. Augustines writings, were as smal as his skill is in the Greeke language, I might be accounted a great straunger in them. But let vsus heare what Bristowes familiaritie with Saint Augustine hath found of the signification of Dulia. De ciuit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 1. Latriam quippe nostri vbicunque &c. Where so euer in the holie Scriptures, is put Latria, our interpreters hauehave translated it seruitus &c. verie well: therefore the olde Latine interpreters iudged Latria and Doulia to be all one. For euen so hauehave they translated Doulia, alwaies by the word seruitus. as Exod 6. 13 20. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 5. Heb. 2. Wherefore Saint Augustine not finding a proper Latine worde, to expresse the worship of God, and chosing Latria the Greeke word, doth onelyonly shewe howe it was his pleasure to vse the terme, and not what the worde doth properly signifie. For foreign differeth not from foreign in signification, as euen Suidas doth confesse, although he say that foreign is a seruice, (foreign,) for wages. And therefore like a learned Grecian, Bristowe, saith foreign is synonomum to foreign, whereas foreign is neuer vsed but for worship of GOD, or superstition, or religion: foreign is a generall name for any kinde of seruice due either to GOD or men. But what shall I reason with such a blocke, as challengeth all authenticall seruice, that euer hath p. 294bene in any Church to be the Popish seruice, although it differ from it both in forme and matter, euen as before he saide, that Iustines description is the verie summe of the Masse.

Concerning the tongue in which the seruice is, Bristowe saith, it maketh no difference in the seruice it selfe: but because I holde that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues, he will consider my groundes thereof. First, the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians, proueth it not, because he speaketh there of a miraculous gift of tongues. A strong reason, I promise you, nay much rather if a speciall gift of the holie Ghoste, must giuegive place to the edifying of the Church, much rather an vnknowne tongue, superstitiously vsurped, must be abolished.

Secondly he saith, Saint Paule doth not reiect the gift, but moderate it, for the varietie of certaine, much like to some Protestantes, that thinke all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth Pur. 7. It was not meete, that Saint Paule should reiect a gift of the holie Ghost, but shewe the right vse of it. But where Bristowe noteth me to thinke all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth the place, he sheweth him selfe to bee a shamelesse lier: for although I exemplifie such learning, as is most necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures, by knowledge of tongues and rationall sciences: yet it followeth not, that I thinke all learning; or all learning needefull for that purpose, to be knowledge of the tongues and rationall sciences, much lesse to be the onelyonly knowledge of the tongues, as this proude Asse ignorant in the tongues, and almost in all good learning, without all foreheade, or with an yron or brasen face, doeth lewdly belie me. But if any man thinke (saith Bristowe) that one may argue of that Chapiter a simili: Let him consider, first, that so, the manner of simple Catholikes, who praie to them selues priuately in the Latine tongue, which they vnderstande not, is not condemned, but iustified. A harde matter, to iustifie superstitious ignoraunce, by similitude p. 295of the heauenly giftes of Gods spirite, which is the spirite of trueth and knowledge. Yes, saith Bristowe, he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men but to God. Yea sir, but doth he say, he that speaketh in a tongue which he vnderstandeth not him selfe? Againe the Apostle saith, he that speaketh in a tongue, doeth edifie him selfe: Verily he that speaketh in a tongue, which he vnderstandeth no more then a Parot, edifieth not him selfe, nor any other. Againe he saith: if I pray in a tongue, my spirite praieth, but my vnderstanding or minde is vnfruitfull: which wordes Bristowe hath impudently falsified, saying, For if I praie in a tongue, my spirite (or affection) praieth, though my vnderstanding be without fruite. Where not onelyonly hee taketh spirite for a blinde affection, which is meant of a spirituall gift, but also would beare vsus in hande, that Saint Paule iustified praier with affection voide of vnderstanding, where it followeth immediatly, that he will him selfe, and exhorte all other to pray, not onelyonly in spirit, or spirituall gift, but also with mind or vnderstanding, which shall be fruitfull vntounto other. But he saith further, as Bristow maketh him to say, If thou blesse or giuegive thanks in spirit, thou doest it well: Where neither his wordes, nor meaning is such, but speaketh of them which vse that spirituall gift of tongues, to expresse godlie praier or thankesgiuing, which serue not to edifie the congregation, but doth not iustifie that what so euer a man shall speake in praier or thankesgiuing with affection, is well spoken, although the speaker vnderstand not what he say. For howe can he blesse or giuegive thankes well, that knoweth not whether he blesse or cursse, in the wordes which he vttereth, with neuer so good affection? Lastly, hee citeth out of Saint Paule: If there bee no interpreter, let him be silent in the Church, and speake to him selfe and to GOD. And hereof Bristowe will-conclude, that mother B. is iustified to say her Aui Mari, Daminus stickum &c. As though he that spake in such a tongue as no man present could interprete, and he him selfe that spake p. 296it, did not vnderstand what he spake: but spake meerely in the aire.

The second thing that Bristowe would hauehave to be considered, is that the Church in her publike prayers, doth not speake in a tongue, because the Latine tongue is not in England a straunge tongue, so as it were if one should say Masse at Rome in the English tongue. And whie so I pray thee, Bristowe? Because in England heere and there one, vnderstandeth the Latine tongue? Verily in Rome there be some also that vnderstand the English tongue. Thinke you Bristowe could hauehave this consideration without his considering cap? and therevpon concludeth, And so the question is not nowe the same as was betweene the Apostle and the Corinthians: But whereas the Church would doe all thinges for edification, the question is, whether this be obtained in the publike prayers of the whole world, rather by the Latine tongue, that is to say, by the common tongue, or else by the seuerall tongues, that is to say, by the priuate tongues. Whie, howe nowe Bristowe? is the Latine tongue the common tongue of the whole worlde? You that hauehave all learning beside the tongues, will you denie all other tongues to be common, but the Latine? But to let that passe, the Catholikes hauehave one aunswere to this question, drawing all …o common or vnitie, with a little helpe you may by the same corde, drawe in the communitie and vnitie of Plato and the Anabaptistes: but in the meane while, your edification is voide of instruction. But that is a small matter with you, to driue all men into a common heape of ignorance and superstition, which is your drawing all to common or vnitie.

But to come to examples of the primitiue Church, he saith I can not denie, but that all nations of the Latine Church, had the seruice in Latine: I say, all nations that vnderstoode the Latine tongue, as their vulgar speach, but not all nations of the West, which vnderstoode it not. That most nations vnderstoode the Latine tongue, which he calleth an absurde position, he saith I proue it, by the Germane or French Councels of Toures, Magunce, and Rhemes, by which I rather p. 297shewe the decaie of the Latine tongue in those regions. But my proues are other then he is able to aunswere, and therefore he letteth them passe, cauelling that the Latine tongue was hard vntounto the people, where I shewe the decaie of it: As also that the French tongue at this day is in some places called the Romane, where I shewe the continuaunce of the rusticall Romane tongue in Fraunce, out of the Councel of Turon 3. cap. 17. as though the French tongue at this day, were not much declined from the similitude which it had with the pure Latine tongue, seuen or eight hundreth yeares agoe. To the decree of the Councel of Laterane cap. 9. which commaunded, that Ministers should be prouided, which according to the diuersitie of rites and languages, should celebrate diuine seruice, and minister the sacraments, to people of diuers languages, being conuersant in one citie. Bristowe aunswereth, the Bishoppes were not commaunded to translate the seruice into English, and other vulgar tongues, but to prouide Ministers according to the rites and languages in which the seruice presently was. Yes sir, they were commaunded to prouide Ministers to serue them according to the diuersitie of languages, that were in euerie citie, where were people of diuers tongues. But otherwise Bristowe asketh me, whie it prouideth for those cities and diocesses in which were people of diuers languages, and not for all in generall. I aunswere the prouision is generall, according to the diuersitie of languages in any citie or diocesse. Last of all, he asketh whie suche translation was in no place put in execution? But first I must aske him howe he proueth that in no place it was put in execution? And although it were not, it declareth the negligence of the Bishops, not the vnderstanding of the Canon.

In the foure and twentie Demaund of Priesthoode and sacrifice, he chargeth vsus with apostasie, for translation of the Priesthoode, whereof must followe a translation of the lawe. Which apostasie falleth right vponupon p. 398the Papistes, which translated the Priesthoode of Christ which he hath foreign without succession, vntounto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood. But let vsus see what balde reason he bringeth, to proue that we hauehave translated the Priesthood. First we hauehave laboured to chaunge the Apostolicall names of Episcopus and Presbyter, into superintendent & elder. So a translation out of Greeke into Latine, or English, is a chaunge with him: and such as may not be abidden, for he reproueth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian, an elder.

Secondly, I helpe an other argument of theirs, concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchie is no part of Christian Ministerie: by which I declare, that we hauehave chaunged the Priesthoode of the Primitiue Church, which had Popish Bishops, Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcistes, Cantors, Acolytes, Ostiaries, for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named, either in the Greeke or Latine computation of Grynaeus. I confesse the names are auncient, and the offices in the Primitiue Church, were some necessarie, some profitable, but I speake of the Popish Hierarchie, in which nothing remaineth but the names. But Bristowe thinketh I do not consider, that S. Paule nameth there, the onelyonly Ministers of the worde or preachers. Yes verily: and therfore I exclude all these Popish orders, which are such eueryevery one of them as may be and are giuen to men, that are no preachers or ministers of the word. As for the order of Christian Deacons, for ministring to the poore, and Elders of gouernement, I knowe they are not to be sought in that rehearsall. But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith, belong to the ministerie of the altar, y^e Scripture speaketh no one word of them. Yet he saith, I may see the distinction of them, Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders, & 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine. Concerning the first place, I knowe not what he meaneth, except he thinke Paule and Barnabas were not Apostles, before handes were laid on them, and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles. Or else, p. 299that those Prophetes and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter, had nowe orders, which howe he proueth I maruell, specially seeing other Papistes doe vnderstand the worde foreign, which signifieth ministring, for their sacrificing.

As for the other place is of Elders of gouernement, and not Priestes of the Altar. That the auncient writers vsed the names of Sacerdotes, Leuitae, Pontifices, it was not because the ministers of the Gospell are a species or kinde of them, but abusiuely, for a certaine similitude of the Leuiticall order and Priesthoode, with the ministers of the word and sacraments.

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

Fourthly, wee confesse their orders to bee good ynough, because we reorder not them, which is false: for I saide, their admission of the Church is a newe calling. Bristowe saith, that is a newe way to giuegive orders, shewing him selfe ignorant, that euen in the olde Church, suche as were ordained by some heretikes, were receiued after they had abiured their heresie, to continue in the degree of the Cleargie, as of the Nouatians, Concil. Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling, O your Diuinitie, O your Scripture, as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington, not to be a mocke Bishop, but his excellent learning and diligent preaching &c. I passe ouer, as also the great preaching, which nowe at the last, is in Popish countries, where within these threescore yeares, was as great silence as in England at the same time.

Fiftly, arguments neede not, where I denie all Priesthoode, but the spirituall Priesthoode common to all Christians.

Sixtly, If I will inuent a thirde Priesthoode, hee saith that the Primitiue or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchisedech, and to offer sacrifice in breade p. 398duplicate page p. 299duplicate page p. 300and wine as Melchisedek & Christ did. Beware what you say, of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you & Christ, as by Melchisedek: But you regarde not our arguments, they be but obiections. At leastwise I pray you answere our obiections, or else they wilbe argumentes to proue you all blasphemous vsurpers of Christs singular priesthood. But that you wil doe at leasure, & first you will proue your priesthood out of Augustine, Contr. aduers. Leg. & Prophet. Lib. Cap. 19 & 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchisedek, and yet but a sacrifice of praise. So that you hauehave neither your sacrifice propitiatorie, whereof the controuersie is, nor your particular priesthood, for he saith: The Church from the Apostles time &c. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise &c. not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedeck. Now who knoweth not, that the sacrifice of praise, is a spiritual sacrifice, common to al the Church, and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood? So that S. Augastine naming y^e order of Melchisedek, alludeth to those places of the scripture, in which all Christians are called a royall priesthood, & Kinges and priestes 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but neuer intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ, confirmed to him by oath, Psalm. 110. and which passeth not from him, Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church. If you obiect, He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them: I answere although the ministration of the sacrament be proper vntounto them, yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration, is common to the whole Church, as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth. So that although a sacrifice be graunted, yet a special priesthood is not proued. But the sacrifice of the crosse was both of thankesgiuing, & of propitiatiō, he troweth: and therfore the memoriall sacrifice of the altar to be the one, what doth it let to be the other? This argument standing vponupon Bristowes trowing, and confounding the members of a diuision, shall hauehave none other answere for me. The places that I cite out of Ambrose, ad virg. laps. & de p. 301virgin. Lib. 1. to proue that he vseth the names of sacrifice and propitiation, vnproperly, as other of the fathers doe, Bristow will not allow as sufficient, saying I might as wel so argue, that S. Paule speaketh vnproperly, because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing sacrifice. whereas the Apostle, Heb. 10. saith Christs body by death to be made a sacrifice. And what offence is it to say S. Paule speaketh vnproperly, where he speaketh figuratiuely? as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow, there is great difference, but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it, which confoundeth the propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ, with the eucharisticall sacrifice of Christians, as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Crosse: the one could not be offered, without death of the sacrifice and sacrificer, the other is offered continually, the sacrificer liuing.

As for his rule to know proper and vnproper speaches, let him trie to teach his pupils: when I am disposed to learne, I will chuse a better learned teacher.

But now he cōmeth to answere obiections. First I sayd the bringing foorth of bread and wine, was no part of Melchisedeks priesthood, seeing the Apostle comparing him with Christ, in all thinges in which he was comparable, neuer teacheth it, as any part of his priesthood. This argument Bristow maketh to be of one place of Scripture negatiuely, not consideting it is the onelyonly place, where such comparison is made, and that it is absurd to thinke, the Apostle would omit so principall a part of Melchisedeks and Christs priesthood. But Bristow will examine the text. First their vulgar translation, begining at proferens, both gelding the text, & falsely translating At verò Melchisedek rex Salem, proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi) benedixit ei, &c. But truly Melchisedek King of Salem, bringing foorth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the highest GOD) blessed him saying. What doth this context helpe him, which is as much to say as he blessed him because he was a priest? Bristow, p. 302fraudulently omitteth the parenthesis, and in translation, changeth the participle into the verbe. But in the Hebrue (If we beleeue Bristowe) the poynting declareth, that also the Rabbines themselues take it in the same sort. What a greate Rabbine is Bristowe sodenly growne to be, since his departure out of Oxforde? But what poynting should declare this, he sheweth not, neither can I gesse. The text is: And Melchisedek King of Salem brought foorth bread and wine: there is the middle of the verse: then it followeth: And he was a Priest, of the highe GOD, there is the end: then it followeth, And he blessed him &c. In deede Rabby Salomon, but not in respect of any poynting sayth of the bringing foorth of bread and wine, for a true exposition, First that it was vsuall to doe so to men, that were wearied in warre: also that thereby he shewed, that he was not offended with him for killing of his Children, for he taketh Melchisedek to be Sem, the middle sonne of Noach: Secondly for a Mideash, or vaine exposition, that it was to signifie the Minchoth and Nesecuth the meat offeringes, and the drinke offeringes, which his children or posteritie, should offer in that place, not that Melchisedek in respecte that he was a Prieste, did bring foorth bread and wine. But all the Fathers doe agree in this similitude of Melchisedeches Priesthood with CHRIST. I knowe that many doe so, but one Apostle is of greater authoritie then they all, yet none of them all speaketh of a Priesthoode, to offer vp the naturall bodie of Christ in a propitiatorie sacrifice, which is the principall matter in question.

But if Melchisedek were a Prieste, Bristowe will aske me, what was his sacrifice, if it were not bread and wine, seeing none other is mentioned?

For my part, I am not ashamed to be ignorant of that, which the Holy Ghost hath not reueiled. Sure I am, if bread and wine had beene his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of Christ also: the Apostle would not hauehave omitted it, which compareth much p. 303smaler matters in him, with Christ then that.

Where I say, it is horrible blasphemie, to challenge the Priesthoode according to the order of Melchisedek, which is singular to Christ: Psalm. 110. and Heb. 7. Bristowe asketh, if the scripture say not, that there is one baptizer which is Christ, and yet all are not blasphemers that are baptisers. I answere, if any take vponupon him to baptise, with y^e holy ghost and with fire, he is an horrible blasphemer. But to baptise with water, that is to be ministers of the outwarde sacrament, in which onelyonly Christ baptiseth inwardly, Christ hath called all those ministers of his word and sacramentes. Shewe you the like calling for your blasphemous Priesthood, after the order of Melchisedek, or else your example of baptisers will not discharge you of horrible blasphemie. But you hauehave another docterlike argument, when you hauehave scoffed out my poore doctershippe. Were not all the rest in the olde time the ministers of Aaron, but Aaron himselfe was Priest onelyonly in his owne time, and after him euerie one in his time was Priest as well as he, and therefore in that law were many Priestes. He asketh the question, as though it were out of question. Were not all. &c. O famous and illuminate doctor, where did your docters hoode learne, that all the high Priestes successiuely, (whereof euerie one was a figure of Christ as much as Aaron) were ministers of Aaron? For you speake of high Priestes, or else what meane you to say, that Aaron him selfe was priest onelyonly in his owne time, for all his sonnes were priests, although he onelyonly the high priest in his time. VponUpon this stronge foundation, you build a similitude and dissimilitude. So that the olde testament was like to England since the conquest, hauing successiuely many Kinges, But the newe testament is like to England duduring the time of one King: who being but one, yet hath many ministers, as one might say so many ministerial kinges. You shew learning ynough in this similitude and dissimilitude to make you a doctor after y^e popes order. But let vsus vnderunder correctiō of your doctors hood, examine your cōparisō. p. 304The olde Testament was like England since the Conquest, hauing successiuely many Kings. Had not euerie of those kings, many Ministers vnderunder them? And euerie Aaronicall priest had also many Priestes and Leuites vnderunder him? And was not Christ head of the Church of the Iewes, in the seuerall times of eueryevery the high Priest? Wherefore the olde testament is as like to England during the time of one King, as the newe in those pointes, but the difference is this: that the figuratiue high priestes were many, because they could not continue, but by death were alwaies chaunged: Christ being an euerlasting Priest, hath a priesthoode that descendeth not by succession: so that although he hauehave many ministers, yet he onelyonly hath the euerlasting priesthoode, which is according to the order of Melchisedek, Heb. 7. As for your terme of ministeriall kings, howe well it agreeth to your shauen crownes, I will not stand here to discusse.

My third argument, as Bristowe calleth it, is this: The Apostle to the Hebrues cap. 10. teacheth vsus, that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sinnes (and that but once cap. 9.) hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified: that our sinnes are taken away by that sacrifice, and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sinnes left. To this Bris…owe aunswereth, that I doe not vnderstand, what the Apostle meaneth by those that are sanctified; by their making perfect; by sacrifice for sinne. The sanctified are onelyonly the newe baptized by his iudgement, for which he quoteth 1. Cor 6. where the Apostle saith: But nowe you are washed, you are sanctified, you are iustified, by the name of our Lord Iesus, and by the spirit of our God. By which he plainely sheweth, that although they were baptized long before, and had committed many sinnes sithence their baptisme, yet the cleannesse of their washing, the holinesse of their sanctification, the righteousnesse of their iustification, they retained still, and therefore exhorteth them to keepe it to the end. So that while Bristowe (as he doth alwaies) chargeth me with ignorance, not knowing what is meant by their making perfect: he incurreth great forgetfulnesse, euen of y^e Apostles words where he expoūdeth, which are p. 305not onelyonly, he hath made perfect, but, he hath made perfect for euer, them that are sanctified. So that if sanctification were restrained to baptisme, which no logike can proue, yet it followeth, that they which are sanctified by Christes death in baptisme, are made perfect not for a moment, as these obstinate blinde Papistes teach, from which perfection they fall immediatlie, and must recouer it by masses, and as Bristowe saith, by penance, &c. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered, hath made perfect for euer, all those that are sanctified. That the purpose of the Apostle (in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes) was no more but to exhort the standing to perseuerance, as Bristowe in so many wordes affirmeth, let him beleeue, that can thinke, the greatest part of his disputation, for the abolishing of all ceremonies, and sacrifices of the lawe, to be idle and beside his purpose. Likewise that if they fall, he telleth them that Christes death will not worke in them an other baptisme, but remedie he telleth them none. Verily there is no remedie, for them that make the death of Christ of none effect vntounto themseues, by an vtter and vniuersall fall from CHRIST. But it is an horrible slaunder of Gods spirite, that he telleth no remedie by repentance, from particular faulles and daylie offences: when he sheweth the perpetuall clensing of our conscience by the bloode of Christ, Hebrews, 10. verse, 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance, verse, 1. and 12. shewing the necessitie of Gods fatherly correction to bring vsus to repentance, Verses 5. 6. 7. &c. But I shewe great ignorance, where I conclude, that if the greatest parte be left to the sacrifice of the masse, namely to take away all sinnes committed since baptisme, Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for euer by a sacrifice once offered for all. For Papistes deuide not remission of a mans sinnes betwene baptisme and the masse. No: but you ascribe the whole in such sorte to either of both, that you diuide the powre of making perfect for euer, from the onelyonly once offered sacrifice of p. 306Christ. But you thinke it is highly for the honor of that one high Priest to hauehave many ministers, and many ministeries, as it were conduites to deriue his purchase, & his redemption to his people. In deede, if he had not one spirite that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption vntounto all his elect, he had neede of many conduites, such as you speake of, for which purpose he vseth not the ministerie of man, but the vertue of the Holie Ghost. The ministerie of man is such as man can execute, that is by the worde, audible and visible, to speake to the eares and eyes of men, and beeing …i… red vp by the holy spirite, to commende the whole effect of his word to the grace of God. But you thinke to auoyde exclamation, if you ascribe nothing to any man, nor any thing, but from that Priest, and from that sacrifice: as though it were lawfull for you to take any thing from the Prieste and sacrifice, and bestowe it vponupon any man or thing, without commission: yea, against commaundement, and against the excellencie of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice, which being once offered neede, noe more to be repeated.

The scriptures thus examined, he commeth to the doctors: And first to Augustine, or rather Fulgentius, de fide ad Petrum. cap. 19. cited by me Pur. 316. & 292. to proue that the olde doctors, vsinge the name of sacrifice, ment not the popish sacrifice propitiatorie of the naturall bodie and bloode of of Christ, because he calleth it Sacrificium panis & vini, the sacrifice of bread and wine. Bristowe replieth, that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body & bloode of Christ, wherein as it is cited by him, so is it answered by me, cap. 6. of this booke. Secondly where he saith, In this sacrifice is thankesgiuing & commemoration &c. Bristow replieth, that he saith also that in this sacrifice is euidētly shewed, what is giuen for vsus, & he is announced alreadie killed. But because this is nothing to y^e purpose, he compareth it to y^e martyrdomes of Peter & Paule commemorated vponupon their feast at Rome euidently shewed and announced by their verie bodies and heades p. 307there seene and visited. A newe way to vnderstand olde doctors, by practise of Idolatrous iugling and faining of reliques. If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome, so many Churches of Peter and Paule as hauehave presently, or hauehave had in times past, reliques of their bones, were greatly deceiued. For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome, his nether iawe, with his bearde is at Poyters, and many of both their bones at Triers, Saint Paules shoulder at Argentina: yea a peece of Saint Peters braine was at Geneua, where it was tried to be a good pumice stone.

The second doctor is, August. de ciui. dei, lib. 22. cap. 10. saying, the martyrs are that body, which is offered in sacrifice, whereof I conclude, that it is not the naturall body of Christ, but his mysticall body, which is offered in a sacrifice of thankesgiuing. Bristowe answereth, that the mysticall body is offered in the offering of the natu…ll body. But Augustine neuer saith, that the naturall body of Christ is offered, but expressing what body is offered, sheweth that the mysticall body is offered. Neuerthelesse Bristowe compareth it to the oblation of Christes naturall body, in offering whereof for his Church, he offered his Church to God with it. But how proueth he y^t Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice? The sacrifice of himselfe was propitiatorie for the sinnes of his Church, which before he had purged by his sacrifice, he could not offer as a cleane and acceptable sacrifice vntounto God.

The third doctor is, Tertullian, which saith, that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded. Bristow saith, That in the name of that prayer, he comprehendeth all that is saide and done in the masse, which to this day the priest therfore begineth saying vntounto vsus after the gospell, Dominus vobiscū, oremus, let vsus pray, & immediatly goeth to the bread and wine &c. You may thinke I iest: they be the very, words of Bristow and his onelyonly answere. Yea, but there be reasons of this saying: Because that pure sacrifice is made & celebrated with prayer, as Hierom saith, by the p…iestes prayers. p. 308What are then the wordes of consecration? And because euen the olde howse of those leuiticall bloode sacrifices also, was Domus orationis, the howse of prayer: Therefore the masse is nothing but a prayer. So is Tertullian answered. Who would not wonder at this clearkely answere? For I thinke no man can vnderstand of what reason it holdeth.

The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church, Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure, doth sanctifie the sacrifice, and causeth GOD to accepte it as comming from a frende. The sacrifices doe not sanctifie a man, for GOD hath no neede of sacrifice. &c. This cannot be verified of the naturall body of Christ. Bristowe answereth, they say the same. Yea doe, Bristowe? Is the sacrifice you offer, the bodie of Christ? Yea? doth the conscience of the offerer, sanctifie the body of Christ? Out vponupon thee filthie blasphemous dogge, if thou dare affirme it. But Bristow asketh Wether any heretike canpleade by their verdit, that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine? As though that were the question. Yea or also the body it selfe and bloode of Christ, so as all Priestes doe in their Caluinicall communion, no lesse then we doe in the masse? What newes is this? doe all Priestes in the Caluinicall communion, offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papistes doe in your masse? I thinke euen the same: for none that communicate with Caluine, doe at all offer Christes naturall body and blood, and no more doe you, although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to doe it.

In the 25. demaund of Monkes, where I say the olde Monkes were nothing but Colledges of studentes: Bristowe saith, in ouerthtowing of Popish Abbeis, in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes, and Idolatrie, we hauehave spoyled the Church of God, of great vtilitie. But he saith further, they were votaries, and so they be not in colledges of studentes: their vowes were not such that could make them other then students, they p. 309vowed to serue God vprightly, and his Church, when they were called, and they in Colledges which hauing once promised the same, forsake this holie purpose, hauehave smale commendation among studentes. I know in time superstition preuailed, and that which first was free, at last became coact: and that which was of conueencie, was thought of necessitie, euen as true religion declined, and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatrie and superstition.

In the 27. demaund of Councels, where I proue that Councels may erre. First by the prayer vsually saide after the ende of euerie generall Councel: Bristowe saith, the prayer is not in respect, for any false decrees or beleeuings of their whole bodies, but by reason of certaine ignorances and frailties of their members: when in the prayer, they expresly declare their feare, lest ignorance hath driuen them into error, which can be vnderstoode of none other common errors of this life, but of their error in decrees, seeing the prayer is appropriate vntounto the Councel. And that the wordes going before, & after do manifestly declare. Te in nostris principiis &c. Thee in our beginninges we require an assister, thee also in this ende of our iudgementes or decrees, we desire to be present a pardoner for our faultes, that is, that thou wouldest spare our ignorance and pardon our error: that to our perfect desires, thou wouldest graunt a perfect efficacie of worke. And because our conscience accusing vsus, we doe fainte for feare, lest either ignorance hath drawne vsus into errror, or rashnes of will perhaps hath driuen vsus to decline from iustice; therfore we desire thee, & we pray thee, that if we hauehave drawne vntounto vsus, any offence in the celebritie of this Councell, thou wouldest vouchsafe to pardon it, and to make it remissible. Who would pray thus, in the name of the whole Councell, which he thought could not possiblie fall into any error.

That I alledge out of Augustine, de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That generall Councells are and may be reformed, the later by the former: Bristowe vnderstandeth p. 310of Councells not confirmed by the Pope, which may be reformed euen by y^e see Apostolike alone. That was a poynt more then S. Augustine sawe. But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole Councells, where lacketh any necessarie confirmation? This is a shamelesse eluding of the Doctors sayinges. For first Augustine includeth all catholike Bishops, in possibility of erring in doctrine, not excepting the Bishop of Rome, then prouinciall, & last of all generall Councells: onelyonly the scripture cannot be amended, as that which hath no error in it.

Where I saide, the Councells are receiued, because they decreed truly according to the worde of God, and not the truth receiued, because it was decreed in Councells: Bristowe saith, I might as well say, the scriptures are receiued, because they are written truly: and not the truth receiued because it is written in the scriptures. But I say the comparison is not like: For truth is not so necessarilie bound vntounto generall Councells, as it is to the holy scriptures; and therefore both the scriptures are receiued because they are written truly, and the truth is receiued because it is knowne by the scriptures. It followeth not so of councells: that what soeuer they hauehave decreed is truth, although the Bishop of Rome hauehave confirmed them. Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretike, whom you hould cannot erre in doctrine, which is an argument sufficient, to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions: The pope cānot erre: The generall Councel confirmed by the Pope, cannot erre.

In the 28. demaunde, of the See Apostolike, where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome, withstoode by Irenaeus and Polycrates, when he went about to vsurpe authoritie ouer other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia, and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reprouing y^e Bishop of Rome, were not heretikes: Bristow babling about the cause of Victors displeasure, which is no matter in question, saith p. 311he vsurped no authoritie, nor was so charged, but that his censure did seeme to harpe to S. Irenaeus, as if the Pope would nowe excommunicate all them that would not receiue the Councel of Trent, it would seeme likewise to many, who confesse he hath authoritie ouer al. But none of these Bishops, that withstoode Victor, confessed, that he had authoritie ouer them, or that he could not erre. But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with vsurpation, where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure, seeing he followeth (as he thought) the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles. Likewise Eusebius saith, that Victor was sharply reproued of many, and namely of Irenaeus in the behalfe of all the brethren of Fraunce, whom he gouerned. Yea, he saith expresly, that Victor with his censure was countermanded, by many Bishops: foreign. They did countermaund him, or gaue him contrarie commaundement, to set his minde on things pertaining to peace and vnitie, and louelove of his neighbour. Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor shewing, that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome in some small things, wherein they differed, declared, that it was not then of Polycarpus or him selfe otherwise thought, but that the Bishop of Rome might erre.

The other example, I brought, was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, misliked by Dionysius: Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 &c. & sharply reproued by Cyprian, accusing him of presumption and contumacie, Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus, and almost all the Churches of Asia, thinking that such as were baptized by heretikes, should be baptized againe. Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum, saying that Peter himselfe was not so arrogant, nor so presumptuous, that he would say, he held the primacie, and y^t other men should obey him, as his inferiors: Bristowe saith none of these denied y^e primacie of Peter. I say they al denied the primacie of autoritie, although Cyprian in y^e same place saith: For neither Peter, whom our lord chose first (which argueth no primacie but of order) vpō whom he builded p. 312his Church, when Paule did afterward dissent from him, about circumcision, did boast him self or take vponupon him any thing insolently or arrogantly, that he should say, he held the primacie, and that he ought rather to be obeyed of newe scholers and aftercommers. Here you see it had bene in Cyprians iudgement, a point of insolencie and arrogancie in Peter, if he had challenged the primacie of authoritie, and certaintie of trueth against al men. But Bristowe saith, when there was no remedie, but they must yeeld or be Schismatikes, because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them, they did like Catholike men, for all their Councels, conforme their newe practise to the old custome, and quoteth August. de bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. & 25. where there is no such matter, also he referreth vsus to his fift Demaund, where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified. Only cap. 6. Dionysius chaungeth his iudgement, being admonished in a vision, and that he had learned that not nowe onelyonly, but of olde time, both in Aphrica and other places, the trueth was receiued, &c. but of any constraint for feare of being Schismatikes, if they dissented from the bishop of Rome, there is no word.

The place of Hierome ad Euagrium, which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custome of the whole Church, against a custome of the Church of Rome, Bristowe saith, doth not proue a Church, a rule of trueth, and Christianitie, without the bishop and Church of Rome, because Hierome saith, as also there I cite: Nec altera &c. we must not thinke, that there is one Church of the citie of Rome, and an other of all the world, &c. By which wordes, he sheweth, that the Church of Rome, if she will be a member of the Catholike Church, must conforme her selfe to the Church of all the world, and not the Church of all the world conforme her selfe to the Church of Rome.

Where I say, we beleeue the Catholike Church, hath no chiefe gouernour on earth but Christ, vntounto whome al power is giuen in heauen and earth: Bristowe obiecteth: suppose, that one Christian King or Emperour should reigne sometime, as farre as the Church reacheth. To this p. 313impossible supposition, I aunswere, that one King should hauehave no more authoritie, than euerie King hath nowe. But Bristowe obiecteth, that Kings and Queenes be no more named among S. Paules officers, &c. Ephes. 4. & 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritane belike, I would pull them downe. In the motiue of Apes, he discharged me from being a Puritane, by his censure; but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritane so farre, that I should also be a traitour, as he and all his fellowes are. To his wise obiection I aunswere, that as Kings and Queenes are not named among Saint Paules officers, so they are no Ecclesiasticall, but ciuill Magistrates, and the Church may be without them, as it was many hundreth yeares. Yet when Kings and Queenes are Christians, they hauehave chiefe authoritie ouer persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall, as farre as the godlie Kings of Israel and Iuda had, Dauid, Solomon, Iehosophat, Ezechias, Iosias, &c.

But Christ professing that all power is giuen him, Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authoritie, he might commit what authoritie he would, and therefore biddeth all his Apostles goe, teach, and baptize… and to one of them singularly, feede my lambes and my sheepe. No maruel, though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproued, when such learned conclusions come from Bristowe. Christ saide to one, feede my lambes and sheepe, therefore he saide it singularly, and he hath vniuersall charge, and all his successors to. But for the Popes supremacie, the Apostle saith expresly, 1. Cor. 12. the heade (vnderunder Christ) can not say to the feete, you are not necessarie to me. But who taught you to foyst in your owne glosse, vnderunder Christ? when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a naturall bodie; wherevnto euerie seueral cōgregation and y^e whole church also is like. If you seeke the head of eueryevery seuerall congregation, you must looke to the chiefe gouernours thereof, but if you seeke the head of the whole Church, the scripture teacheth but one, which is Christ, for one head vnderunder another, in one whole body is monstrous. But you thinke perhaps, Christ as he is head of his Church, may say to the feete, he hath no neede of them, and therefore it must be vnderstoode of p. 314an head vnderunder Christ, but then you must remember, that although Christ be most perfect in him selfe, yet as he vouchsafeth to take vponupon him this office to be head of y^e Church, he is not perfect without al his members, which is the singular comfort of Gods children, Ephe. 1. ver. last. But Saint Paule, Ephe. 4. as Bristowe saith, vnderunder the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter, whose see for that cause is called the Apostolike see in singular maner, and their decrees and actes esteemed of Apostolike authoritie in al antiquitie. This cause is a shameles and senseles lie, for no antiquitie, for 600. yeares after Christ so esteemed y^e see, or the decrees therof. Again., what reason is it, y^t Peters successors should be included, more thē the successors of the other Apostles, seeing this souereigntie of Peter, is not grounded vponupon his Apostleship, but vponupon his Bishoplike office, as Sander maintaineth? As for the principalitie of Apostleship, & principalitie of the Apostles chaire, which he quoteth out of August. de bapt. Cont. Don. li. 2. ca. 1. & epi. 162. hauehave often bene shewed to be vnsufficient, to make eueryevery one of Peters successors equal with Peter in authoritie, or Peter him selfe superiour to the rest of the Apostles. And consequently there is no cause to thinke, that calamitie of the Greekes to be fallen vponupon them for departing from that see.

In the 29. Demaund of Traditions, where I charge Papistes out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians, which accused the scriptures of imperfection, saying, that they are ambiguous, and that the trueth can not be found in them, by such as knewe not the tradition, which was not deliuered by writing, but by worde of mouth, &c. Bristowe answereth, that S. Irenee him selfe, as al Catholikes, will hauehave both scripture and tradition. Yea sir, but what tradition? any trueth of doctrine, conserued by tradition, which is not contained in the holie scriptures? nothing lesse. But appealeth to the testimonie of the Churches tradition, for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures. Hunc patrem &c. This father of our Lorde Iesus Christ to be preached of the Churches, they that wil, may learne out of the scripture it selfe, and p. 315vnderstand the Apostolike tradition of the Church, seeing the Epistle is auncienter than they which nowe teach falsely &c. So that what so euer the Apostles deliuered, is contained in their writinges, and it is still an hereticall assertion to say, that all true doctrine is not deliuered by writing, but some by word of mouth.

In the 34. Demaund of Authoritie, where I affirme, the order of the Apostles schoole, is first to heare the word of God preached, and then to beleeue, Rom. 10. reprouing Allen which commended his friend, that he first beleeued, and afterward sought to vnderstand: Bristowe obiecteth the authoritie of Augustine, lib Retr. 1. cap. 14. where he sheweth the cause, whie he did write his booke de vtilitate credendi to hauehave ben, for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholike faith, that men were commaunded to beleeue not taught, by most certaine reason, what was true, whose slaunder Augustine confuteth in that booke, and not defendeth Bristowes preposterous order. As for examples of beleeuing Christ and his Apostles, without requiring a reason of their doctrine; howe vaine it is, I leaue to children to laugh at, seeing I speak not of reason, but of the word of God preached, which must needes goe before faith: Neither doth Augustine meane any otherwise in his booke de vtil. cred. cap. 13. where he saith: It is rightly appointed by the maiestie of the Catholike discipline, that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion. But howe should faith be persuaded, but by the preaching of the word of God, without curious inquisition, according to the reason of man?

Where I say, that Protestants wil be ruled by their superiors, so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God: Bristow derideth their authoritie, who by our own confession may swarue from the truth of Gods word: as though the Popish superiors might not, or their supreme head, although beside so many blasphemous errors, as he holdeth, wherof y^e controuersie is with y^e Papistes, it hauehave not bene oft proued, y^t diuers Popes hauehave bene condemned, euen by generall Councels for heretikes. Where I p. 316saide the Greeke Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople, and the orientall Churches by their Patriarkes and Bishops. Bristowe saith, if I knewe the storie of the Florentine Councel, wherein the Patriarkes agreed with the Catholikes Church in all things, and yet could not reduce their countries from schisme, I would not so say. But I knewe that storie before Bristow knewe whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper, found in the hande of Ioseph the Patriarke, who died soudenly: but in no acte of that Councel any such submission or agreement in all things, appeareth, but the contrarie.

Where I saide, that to beleeue the Catholike Church, is not to beleeue all and eueryevery thing which the Catholike Church doth maintaine: Bristowe would hauehave me suppose, the Apostles had said, Credo. S. Romanam ecclesiam, and then asketh, howe I would hauehave construed it. Verily euen as I conster Credo ecclesiam Catholicam. And so would I conster Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas &c. But if the Apostles would hauehave taught vsus, to giuegive credite to the Church of Rome in all things, they would hauehave taught vsus to say, Credo Romanae ecclesiae. And Credo scripturis Canonicis, duodecim Apostolis, quatuor Euangelistis, &c. I giuegive credite to the holy scriptures, to the twelue Apostles, and to the foure Euangelistes. For Credo with an Accusatiue case, to signifie I giuegive credite, howe so euer you deride my grammatication, will not be admitted in the kingdome of Grammarians, except his holinesse will doe as much for that terme, as he is reported to hauehave done once for fiatur.

In the 35. Demand of Vnitie, where I said, the Church may be called the house of peace, because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith: Bristowe saith, by this reason, many olde heresies were with in the house of peace, because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest, may breake peace, as that of quartadecimani, who disagreed onelyonly in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion, might be in the house of peace, as Irenaeus testifieth, if obstinate p. 317contempt of generall order did not make a schisme, and of a schisme an heresie, as in the Donatistes. Otherwise difference in a ceremonie (as I said) maketh not diuision of faith: Bristowe saith, yes, if they holde their ceremonie necessarie. But then they holde it not as a ceremonie, or the Churches ceremonie vnlawfull. But that maketh not diuision. Polycarpus thought his ceremonie to be the right ceremonie, against Anicetus, yet he was not diuided from him, for he considered the errour in a ceremonie not to be of such importance, that it ought to breake the vnitie of the Church. And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus, nor Anicetus with him. No more doe they among vsus, that differ in opinion of ceremonies, except some fewe schismaticall heades, that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubbornesse.

The difference of opinions betweene the Popish Diuines and Canonistes, Bristowe saith are such, as may be among Christians, as Augustine testifieth, Cont. Iul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt. Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. vntil a general Councel allowe some part for cleare and pure, but we will not allowe the authoritie of any generall Councel, if Bristowe may be beleeued: If we might hauehave a Christiā generall Councel for such matters, as are in controuersie among vsus, I doubt not but we should agree, better then the Papistes which boast so much of vnitie. As for the contention of the Popes and Councels superioritie, remaineth still among you, notwithstanding the Florentine Councel, which you say most impudently, that I confesse to hauehave resolued the matter, when an other Councel, and an other Pope at the same time, determined against it.

In the 36. Demand of Owners or Keepers of the scriptures, where I say the primitiue Church, which commendeth the scripture vntounto vsus, doth not condemne Luther or his doctrine for heresie: Bristowe saith, it doth in Aerius, Iouinian, Vigilantius, &c. as though there were no primitiue Church before these men, which commended the scripture vntounto vsus, and yet knewe neither praier for p. 318for the deade, nor superstition of reliques, or any thing that Luther held with those men.

Where I taxe the blindnesse of the Popish Church, not discerning the scriptures Canonicall, from Apocryphall: Bristowe bringeth in a saying of Augustine, shewing that it is of necessitie, for him to beleeue the Actes of the Apostles, if he beleeue the Gospell: because the Catholike authoritie commendeth both the scriptures alike vntounto him. But I hauehave shewed, that the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Iudeth, &c. are not commended to vsus by the Catholike or vniuersall authoritie of the Church. After other contentious pointes stoutly affirmed or denied, without proofe, he commeth to charge me with a substantiall lie, because I say our Church which is the onelyonly true Catholike Church, hath alwaies had right and possion of the worde of God, as appeareth by this, that our Church beleueth nothing but that she learneth in them. If this be not a notable plea, Bristowe reporteth him to our Lawiers. But I report me to al Logicians, whether it be not a good argument, by prouing vsus to be the true Church, to claime continuall right and possession of the scriptures, as for y^e noueltie of Luther, & our cōgregatiō, is a weake plea to dispossesse vsus of y^e Church, when y^• antiquitie of our faith and religion, proueth vsus to be of the oldest Church, and therefore the only true Church.

Where Allen made his offer, that if I could shewe any Church, that hath safely kept the scriptures, sauing the Popish Church, he would recant: I shew him the Greeke and Easterne Churches, which are not Popish, whervpon he is bound by his offer to recant: yet Bristowe without all shame saith: EueryEvery article of D. Allens is not to proue absolutely, that we be the Church; but some only that you be not the Church. True it is, that neither eueryevery one nor any of them all, are sufficient to proue, that you are the Church and not we. But that Allen meant they were sufficient, it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant, if any of them can be proued to agree to any other, than to the Popish Church.

p. 319In the eight and thirtie Demand of old Heresies, where I shewed that many of the Popish ceremonies, were first instituted by heretikes, aunswering directly to Allens challenge, that offered to recant if any man could proue, that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies: Bristowe saith they are such matters, as agree none otherwise to them then to those whome I dare not condemne &c. Which if it were so, yet doth it not shewe but that I hauehave aunswered Allens challenge, and therefore do, according to his promise, claime his recantation.

Of the Messalians or Martyrians I saide, they learned first to shaue their beardes, and let their lockes growe long: Bristowe out of Epiphanius saith, they did let their haire growe long like women The Popish Priestes doe not so, but round them. Yet can he not proue out of Epiphanius, that the Messalians did not keepe their haire in order by rounding or otherwise. Further he saith, some Protestants doe so. I aunswere, none of ceremonie doth so. Thirdly, Priestes in Italie and Spaine doe poll their heads and keepe their beardes. I answere, they keepe the text of the decree, and you the glosse, which saith, statuimus, id est abrogamus &c. We decree, that is we abrogate that Clearkes neither weare long haire, nor shaue their beardes. Last of all he saith, I hauehave no great matters to charge them with, when I lay their haires to their charge. My reply is, that my charge goeth no further then Allens challenge, which vrgeth me to shewe any other to hauehave first instituted any one ceremonie in Poperie, but the Popes only Catholike Church. And so I say to the superstitious masking garmentes, instituted by the Pharisees, although the auncient Church about foure or fiue hundreth yeares after Christe, receiued such robes in vse.

Also the daily vse of Popish holie water, to put men in minde of baptisme, had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptized or washed euerie day. Here Bristowe with a verie stale iest, acknowledgeth their fault, and layeth it vponupon Saint Paule, who p. 320hath deceiued them, Rom. 6. where baptisme is in deede remembred, but holie water I trowe is not there. O, then it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paule was to blame (saith Bristowe) to tell vsus, that the creatures of God are sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer. Wonderfull Diuinitie, that can bring Popish holie water to so holie a beginning! No maruell if we be blinde, which thinke the Apostle speaketh there of the lawfull vse of meates (forbidden by the Pope) and of all other of Gods creatures being sanctified by the worde of God, which giuegive vsus the vse so by praier, that we may vse them well. But specially saith Bristowe, he was to blame for saying. The holy Ghost doth helpe our weaknesse, praying for vsus with groanes vnspeakeable, how so euer blinde heretikes thinke he will doe nothing by water for praier. In deede when the scriptures be so plaine for holie water, it is wonder that any be so blinde they can see it.

Of the Ossenes I saide, they tooke their hallowing of water, salt, oyle, breade, &c. and vse to sweare by them. Bristow asketh if I be an Anabaptist, that will condemne all swearing or swearing by creatures. I aunswere, I will not condemne all swearing, but this customable swearing of Papistes, by this bread, by this salt, &c. and as for swearing by creatures, I am of the same iudgement that our Sauior Christ is, Matth. 5. 34. But Papistes sweare not by them as the Ossenes did, what then? the controuersie is not therein, but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part.

Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholers a praier in a straunge tongue, whose interpretation they might not seeke, whome the Papistes followe in teaching the people to pray in a tongue vnknowne, and will not, (if they may chose) let them knowe the interpretation. Bristowe aunswereth, that Epiphanius saith, his praier was nothing at all when it was interpreted. Is it like Epiphanius would say so? Howe could it be interpreted, if it had no signification? Epiphanius in deed sheweth it was a vaine thing, whereof he made so great a mysterie, and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the Lordes p. 321prayer, the Salutation and the creede, make vaine and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their wordes together truly.

The Marcosians in baptisme vsed for greater admiration certaine Hebrewe wordes; so doe the papistes: Bristowe asketh, whie S. Marke in his greeke writing, vseth y^t word Eppheta? I answere, more liuely to expresse the miracle of Christ: yet doth he it not without interpretation. Likewise Saint Iohn, in his Apocalipse vseth Amen and Alleluia, wordes, whose signification was as commonly knowne to all Christians, as their owne mother language. What is this to iustifie the vse of that word in baptisme, which neither Marke nor Iohn speake of? But it was vsed in the time of Ambrose. So Ambros. de Sacralib. 1. cap. 1.were other needlesse matters, yet was it vsed to them that vnderstoode the whole office or seruice of baptisme in latine. Augustine saith it was not lawfull for any Barbarian, or Latine man to translate the words, Amen & Alleluia, which al nations do singe in the Psalmes, into his owne language. For thus he coteth De doct. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 11. & inter Epist. 174. but in neither of thē do I finde any such matter. Certaine it is that Augustine doth giuegive the signification of them both in latine. Of the Marcionistes (I said) they learned to giuegive womē leaue to baptise: Bristow saith, we doe our selues therein by order of our booke as much as they doe, but he is deceiued: there is no permissiō in the booke for women to baptise. Touching the necessitie of baptisme, we hauehave spoken before cap. 6. Finallie I saide the Papistes are Pelagians for holding free will, and merites of workes, as they did, & not predessination and grace as S. Augustine did, Bristow citeth Hierom. Cont. Pela saying, y^t it was the heresie of the Manichees, to take away free will. So it was in deede to affirme that the wil of man was inforced or constreined. But that the will of man, is free from the thraldome of sinne, and hath power to merite, without grace, or with grace more easily, it was the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine in whole bookes written against thē doth declare: But August. Epist. 46. saith, That by the grace of p. 324God a wicked man may be made a iust one, and so may begin to hauehave good merites, which God shal crown whē the world shal be iudged. I answere by merites he meaneth workes and not desertes: for else how saith he elsewhere (in Ps. 101. & diuers places beside) that God crowneth his giftes and not our merites, where he vseth the name of merites, for desertes? where I saide the papistes colour Pelagianisme with their distinctiō, De congruo & condigno: Bristow saith we do like hypocrites conceale before the people, the distinction of merites before grace, and after grace, for they hold that a man cannot merite the grace of God De congruo without Gods healpe, although they hauehave no resolute warrant to call the contrarie Pelagianisme or heresie. And why hauehave you no warant? for reare you should condēne diuers of your cheife pillers the scholemē for heretikes, which hold contrary to that you hold, and yet you all hold that a man may dispose him selfe vntounto a certaine aptnes to receiue the grace of God by the power of his free will. Where I said God is as much bound to congruitie as to condignitie: Bristow saith I immagine that if God do not that which is cōgruous, he doth against cōgruitie. Now good sir saith he, It is cōgrue to his merciemercy, to saue the simple that are out of the Church, which is not cōgruus to his iustice But good sir, I pray you dispute not so of congruine, y^t you oppose Gods merciemercy to his iustice, there is nothing congrue to hismercie, which is not cōgrue to his iustice, for vntounto whōsoeuer he wil shew merciemercy, he hath receiued for them satisfaction to his iustice, in the person of Christ: yet Bristow hath another example for condignitie: For God to saue al the world, it is condigne to the merites of Christ, yet he damneth innumerable, because it is condigne to their owne merites. By this it may be inferred, that God yeeldeth not to the merites of Christ, so much as they deserue, because the merites of many men doe hinder, as though y^e merites of al men do not deserue dā nation of cōdignitie, & then what cause is this, why God giueth not to Christs merites so much as they are worthie to receiue, because many deserue damnation? This p. 323foolish sophistrie riseth by reasoning from possibilitie of Christes worthynesse, to the acte of mens worthynesse. But compare acte with acte, and God saueth all his elect for the worthynesse of the merites of Christ by his merciemercy: and damneth all the reprobate for the worthinesse of their sinne, by his iustice of predestination denied by the papistes, as it is defended by S. Augustine Bristow speaketh neuer a word.

In the 39. demaund which he calleth Inconfessed heretikes onelyonly: where I answering to the question of Allen Pur 421. 422. with an other question or demaunde why it was reueiled, first to the Arrians in councell, that the article of Christes descent into hell was meete to be added to the Creede which was not in anie symbole before. Bristowe first surmising, as his manner is, that which was neuer thought of, at last confesseth this article to be added in an Arrian Creede, Theodor. Lib 2. cap. 21: affirming that it was before that, in the Apostles Creede, but thereof he bringeth no proofe nor witnesse. The iudgement of the scriptures and not of mens opinions argueth heresies. Let the writinges of the Apostles trie whether of vsus is departed from the doctrine of y^e Apostles.

In the 40. demaunde which he termeth, They neuer afore now. Where I saide we agree with the most ancient fathers in the cheefe and most substantiall articles of faith: Bristowe saith, I confesse his purpose. For Vigilantius, Iouinianus &c. did much more agree with them in such articles, yet were not of their church, could not be, and would not be. How proue you that Vigilantius was not of the Church, or woulde not be, although he dissented from Hierom? As for Iouinian, although we hold no part of his assertion in manner as he helde, yet his error was not so great, that he might not be saued with it. Fewe of those fathers but had as great errors as that. It seemeth you would hauehave no man to be of the ancient Church, except he agree with the ancient fathers in al their errors: if it be proued out of the holy scripture y^t Hierom erred, in that wherein he dissented from Vigilantius, why is heto be allowed p. 324in that error, more then in other thinges wherein he and other of those antient fathers erred.

Where I doubt whether Apostolici in S. Bernard… time were slaundered: Bristow saith it is a poore and fowle shifte, because Bernard himselfe is witnes against them, as though it were not possible that Bernard might be deceiued by miss…information, of them that enuied such kinde of men as they were.

Where I say it is certaine that Panperes de Lugduno were slaundered: Bristow saith I proue it not. They proue it themselues, being now and long since openly knowne to hauehave continued in their vnitie from the time of Ioan. Waldo, who separated them by his doctrine and example from the whore of Babilon, in Calabria, Mora…, & Fraunce. Where hauehave beene whole ci…ties or townes of thē, as Merundal, Cabriers &c. Wherefore it is an impudent assertion of Saunder, to say they were friers. &c.

In the 41. demaunde of studying all truth, Bristowe affirmeth, that with friers and other catholikes, all lea…ning had beene packed away, if the princes had not erected a fewe petite schooles, so he calleth not onelie great colleges, but also whole Vniuersities lately erected. But is there any man so ignorant of the time of suppression of Abbies, that he would thinke all learning was in friers and other papistes? Where I say there was neuer greater store of learning in any age, then is now in protestantes: bristow, maketh me still a childe in the grammer schoole, which thinketh no man can be better learned then his maister, saying: We that knowe your and the Catholike schooles, can but laugh at your childishnes. Why Bristowe, doth no man know the learning of popish vniuersities but you? I hauehave seene and heard somthing in the most famous vniuersitie in Europe, and yet I sawe nothing, that Cambridge and Oxford may not be bould to compare with it, except it be in multitude of studentes. Where I speake of the tongues and rationall sciences: Bristowe is boulde to affirme. There are more declamations in Greeke in one common schoole of the Iesuites, then in both your vniuersities (I p. 325dare say being ioyned together. What dare you not say, that hauehave determined to supply in bragging, that you Iacke in learning? if you had named the number, we must perhaps hauehave yealded to you, if happilie our number of Greeke declamations be not so great as yours. But to giuegive you an estimation, by that I knowe of one, and one of y^e lesser sort of colledges in Cambridg, for the number of Greeke declamations, there are a dosen poore schollers of newe erection, since her Maiesties reigne which are bounde to declaime in greeke euerie Terme, beside their weekely exercise of versifying in greek and latin, and their competent knowledg in the hebrewe tonge, required in them by their foundation, before they can be elected to those places. By which you may gesse, that the knoweledge of the laerned tounges, are not so daintie in our vniuersities, as you thinke. Yea, he dare say they hauehave better masters of art of two or three, teaching through out all Logike and Phylosophie, then with vsus in seuen yeares. This childishe bragge, whereof there is no triall, commeth of the spirite of pride, wherewith Sathan puffeth vp the Papistes, that although in the multitude they be farre inferiour to the professors of the truth, in any kinde of good learning, and for the best of them nothing superior: yet euerie one of meanest knowledg, among whom I take Bristowe for one, so swelleth in opinion of his learning, that he contemneth euen them whose skill he neuer assayed. But their masters of Hebrewe, Greeke, Latine, Poetrie, Logike, Philosophie, doe not count themselues learned in diuinitie, which they neuer studied, or better learned in it, then the professors of it, lacking the tounges, or eloquence, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, the Apostles. And what I pray you, doe masters of other sciences among vsus challenge the knowledge of diuinitie which they neuer studied, or thinke themselues better learned in it, then the professors of it? But wherefore ioyne you to Thomas Aquinas, who in deede lacketh both tounges & eloquēce. S. Augustine, who was a master of eloquēce, and not ignorant in tongues, & especially the Apostles, which were indued with heauenly eloquince, and knowledge of all tongues? But it is rudenes and barbarousnes (saith Bristow) in our countrie, to thinke ae meere grammer schoolemaster sufficient to be doctor of diuinitie, yea and a Bishop also, not for other quali…es, but euen for diuinitie. I cānot denie, but it were rudenes and barbarousnes so to thinke. But I vtterly deny, that any meere grāmer schoolemaster in our coūtrie is so preferred as you most slaūdeiously aff…me. For the person whom you pricke at, is well knowne, to be excellētly wel learned in diuinitie, & so to hauehave been many yeare… before his prefermēt, as his learned labors, euen against poperie, are in handes of men to testifie. But seeing you make it so strange a matter for a man, to be called from a grammer scholemaster to be a doctor in diuinitie: It seemeth you hauehave not obserued (for I know you hauehave read all thinges) what Eusebius writeth of Origenes, who being a teacher of Philosophie, Geometrie, Arithmetike, & other liberall artes, for his knowledg in diuinitie, was made a doctor of the Church. And why might not this our Bishop be taken out of the grammer schoole, as well as your White in Queene Maries time? Is the same matter that was wisedome in you, become barbarousnes in vsus? But regnum gramma…icorū is post date, all are not children, as they were when this geare beganne: your tonges will not now serue, no nor your studie of diuini…ie in Caluines schooles: come once to the Catholiques schooles (saith Bristowe) and you will be ashamed of your selfe, as many a one is, that …hought, himselfe at home, and was thought of others a iol…ie fellowe. No no master Bristow (for I must requite your curtesie, seeing once in your life you call me master Pulke) we neede not come to your popish schooles, to see your learning, you bewray it sufficiently by your publike writings. And as for y^e kingdome of gramarians, I marueile whie you scorne vsus with it, as though we had not atteined to the kingdome of any other science or learning. But although we list not to make such large brags of our learning as you doe, I for my part would be ashamed, if there were any knowledg y^t in any age was p. 327counted good learning, wherein our side should not be found as forward in England, as any Papist in the world. As for the slaunderous and witlesse railings, of the heretike Stancarus, preferring the Maister of the sentence, before so many Luthers, Melancthons, Caluines, &c. we esteeme as much as the barking of a dogge against the the Moone. Would God we might all meete in some Vniuersitie, where better triall might appeare of both our knowledges, then wise men may gather by our boasting.

In the three and fourtie Demand of succession, where I saide, there is no such succession of persons and places, promised, as the Papistes boast of: Bristowe saith, the saying of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. promiseth a continuance of Pastors and Doctors vntounto the end: which I confesse, but yet is not the orderly succession of persons and places thereby proued, there shall alway be Pastors and teachers in the Church, but it followeth not, that they shall continue in succession of the same roomes, in the same places, as the Papistes boast of the succession of Popes. That he defendeth the offices of Apostles, Prophetes and Euangelistes, to continue alwayes in the Church by succession, being a grosse error, I will not stand to confute, because it is none of the principall matters in controuersie.

Where I saide, that if succession of persons and places were sufficient, the Greeke Church is able to name as many, as the Latine Church, and in as orderly succession, Ar. 27. Bristowe asketh, what of that, but onelyonly this, that they therefore may better claime the Church than we? Yes this one thing more, that by this my shewing of succession in the Greeke Church, which you can not denie, Allen is bound to recant; and that the Greekes by title of succession, may claime the Church as well as you. But those hereticall and schismaticall Greekes (saith Bristowe) can no more shewe succession than your false Bishops, which are in the sees of Poole, Bonner, Thirlby, &c, and yet I …ro…e, he will not thereby claime succession. duplicate page p. 327duplicate page p. 328We may by as good right as you claime succession to the Apostles, and godly Bishop of Rome, whome you succeede not in doctrine. For neither hauehave you any right succession, but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church, Boniface the third and his fellowes. But Gregorie saith, the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Church of Rome. But so doth not the Councels of Constantinople, which before Gregories time decreed, that the Church of Constantinople should be equall in all thinges with the Church of Rome, the title of senioritie onelyonly reserued: because Constantinople was newe Rome. Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen. li. 7. ca. 9. Euag. li. 2. ca. 4. Conc. Constantinop. 1. ca. 2. &c.

In the 44. Demaund of the Apostolike see, where I say it auaileth not the Papistes, that the Church was planted at Rome, by the Apostles, except they can proue succession of doctrine, as well as of men: Bristowe saith: In prouing the succession of men only, we do as much as the Fathers did. But I say that is false, for the fathers alledge succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding.

In the 45 Demaund of chaunging, where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge, witnessing that Gregorie was y^e first that compelled Priestes to liue vnmarried: Bristowe answereth, that seeing I confesst, that he reuoked his error, he made no change frō his fathers faith: Yes sir, although he reuoked his decree, yet was the same receiued by them that came after him. But the storie of that Epistle is derided by Cope, which affirmeth, that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. yeares before Vdalrichus was made Bishop. Thus these impudent Papists, when they can neither corrupt, nor wrest to their purpose, the monuments of antiquitie, they will vtterly denie them.

Whereas the Papists contrarie to the old vsage of the Church by Allens confession, doe absolue before satisfaction: Bristowe saith, both manners hauehave bene alwaies vsed, and bringeth example of men absolued i… sicknesse, which if they recouered, performed their satisfaction after. But Papistes absolue them that are in health before p. 329satisfaction, which is contrarie to the old vsage.

Where I tell them, that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregorie, and Stephanus of Formosus: Bristowe saith, not one Pope, hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine. It were hard for him to proue, that none of those Popes, all whose actes their successors disanulled, made any decrees of doctrine. And certaine it is, that Gregorie made decrees of doctrine, or else the Popes Canon lawe doth lie, al whose decrees, yea and bookes also, as containing heresie, his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned. But supposing (saith he) that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite, both in opinion and in some secrete writing, yet did he not change, nor go about to change the Romanes into Monothelites. What meant he then to write hereticall Epistles, but to drawe other into his heresie? Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, plainely discouer him to the Councel, that he followed that heretikes minde in all things, and confirmed these vngodly opinions? Con. Constantin. 6. Action. 13. And to what end? but betwene them to change the faith of the whole Church, both of the East and of the West. into Monothelitisme? But that you may see a plaine contradictorie vntounto Bristowes bolde and lying affirmation, I will rehearse the wordes of Pope Leo the second, in his Epistle vntounto the same Councel, Act. 18. Pariter que anathematizamus &c. Also we accurse, the inuentors of the newe error &c. naming them, & among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolike Church, with doctrine of Aposto like tradition, but by prophane treason, did go about to ouerthrowe the immaculate faith. Yet against al this testimonie of antiquitie, Sander in his Monarchie proueth, that Honorius was no Monothelite, and that Iohn 22. did not, as Caluine and we belie the storie, denie the immortalitie of the soule, and resurrection of the bodie, neither was any such thing laide against him by his contentious enimies, but whether the soules doe see God before the generall resurrection, but he also denied that error &c. To this I must needes say, that Bristowe is either an ignorant reporter, or an impudent lier, except p. 330he will say that Caluine or some of vsus wrote, the report of the Councel of Constance, where he was accused and conuicted by witnesse, to hauehave denied the mortalitie of the soule, and the resurrection of the body, and life euerlasting, Session. II. And in the next Session he confessed, that the Councel of Constance was most holie, and could not erre. As for the assertion of Pope Ioane the feminine Pope, I referre the reader to Maister Iewels replie to Harding, where he proueth it, by auncienter testes, than Martinus Polonus, howe so euer Bristowe sawe it in a marginall note, I wot not where, not in what Protestantes hand, as he reporteth.

In the sixe and fourtie Demaund of our auncetors saued or damned, he maruelleth where my wit was, when I alledged against Canonization, y^e example of burning Hermannus the heretike in Ferraria, where he was worshipped twentie yeares Apocryphally. But if he had not bene canonized as you say, where was the Popes care of the Church, that so neare him in Italie, he would suffer such grosse idolatrie, so long time to be committed and continued? Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negatiue the affirmatiue that he was canonized, which so long had bene worshipped, without contradiction is more probable, seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any vngodly vsage, so long to be vncontrolled.

Where I saide, the Papistes can not proue, that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonized the Apostles & principall Martyrs: Bristowe asketh, if making of holie daies, and to name them in diptychis among Saintes, in the holy Canon of the Masse is not proofe sufficient, of their canonization. No sir, if that be canonization, which your late Canons and practise doth allowe: but if it were, I say, the Apostles and principal Martyrs had daies of remembrance of their godly life, and doctrine, names in the tables, and at the celebration of the Lordes supper, before canonization was thought to pertaine onelyonly to the Pope. As for our abrogating of Saintes p. 331dayes, doth not disproue our Communion with the Saintes, which is in consent of their faith, not in celebrating of their feastes. Concerning the canonization of King Henrie the sixt: Bristowe requireth mine authour for a dilatorie plea, because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption. Mine authour is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henrie the seuenth, where I said we acknowledge those to be Saintes, whose names are written in the booke of life. Bristowe like a blacke dogge scoffeth at it, and saith, we might doe well to set out that booke in print, that they might correct their Calender by it. Or else the Churches declaration is the most certaine way to knowe who are written in it. If none should be written, but such as the Pope doth canonize (for that is your Churches declaration) innumerable Papistes, should hauehave no place therein, and not onelyonly Papistes, but the true Saintes of God, of whome not one among tenne thousand, hath bene canonized. Where I say, the Popish Church doth iniurie to the Saintes of God, that she doth not so account them while they liue: Bristowe saith I would be called Saint Fulke, by mine owne industrie, and that out of hande. Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scornes, to delude the textes of Scripture, which I cited, to proue that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saintes, euen in this life, not by their owne industrie and merites, but by the sanctification of the bloud of Christ.

He is angrie that I compare the Popes canonizations with the Heathen Senates canonizing of their Goddes, saying, wee doe the like in canonizing our selues, because wee account our selues Saintes, and true Christians, which is all one, and because I shewe, the emulation of the Bohemians, in solemnizing the memories of Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage, which differeth as much from Popish canonization, as their faith and religion differeth from Poperie.

In y^e 47. Demand of cōmunion of Saints, he boasteth of increase of Papists in England, affirming, y^t beside thē which p. 332are Catholike in heart and of their communion, there be innumerable of them reconciled, which he saith, to prepare the minds of his friendes vntounto their intended massacre and rebellion. I suppose in deede, there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors: but yet not so many, but they may be numbred. But howe many so euer they are, I doubt not, but there are Christians of such number and power in England, as are able to giuegive all the Papistes both on this side the sea, and beyond it, as blacke a day as the Popes armie found in Ireland, if euer they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable deuises.

In the 48. Demaund, where I shewe the fruites of the Gospell, being vrged thereto by Allen, Pur. 241. to appeare notably in the liberall prouision for the poore of all sorts in England, and namely in the citie of London: Bristowe calleth it beastly impudencie: yet is he not able to name any Popish citie, that maketh such prouision; but falleth into open railing, vponupon the corrupt manners of all the citie, as though for the fault of many, (which yet Gods name be praised, are not the most) the whole citie were not inferior to Sodome and Gomorrhe in wickednesse: In which place as being very populous, there are many offenders, so are they punished if their offences may be knowne. But who so knewe London in the time of Poperie, and nowe also considereth the manners of the multitude, must be a very vnequall iudge, if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number, though he can not see it all. As for the citie of Rome, which Bristowe compareth with Solomon, whose Priestes were more excellēt than the report that went of him: as by y^e storie and relation of them which knewe it before this time, so by report of some which euen in this time hauehave visited the same, we hauehave sufficient vnderstanding, that without great reformation, it still continueth the mother of all abhominations of the earth, and reaching forth y^e cup of poisoned wine, vntounto such as seeke her whorish familiaritie, maketh them therewith so drunke, that there is no cause why Bristowe should maruell why nothing p. 333confirmeth more our countrimen in Poperie, nor alienateth them from the Protestants, than to goe and see Rome.