A REJOINDER to Bristows Reply in defence of Allens scroll of Articles and Book of Purgatory. Also the cavils of Nicholas Saunder D. in Divinity about the Supper of our Lord, and the Apology of the Church of England, touching the doctrine thereof, confuted BY WILLIAM Fulke, DOCTOR IN DIVINITY, AND Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge.  
Seen and allowed.  
AT LONDON, Printed by H. Middleton for George Bishop. ANNO. 1581.   

To the Christian Reader.  
ALlen the Author of the Popish challenge (as it is now confessed) and of the Book of Purgatory, as he always acknowledged, finding mine answer to both these treatises, so well grounded upon the authority of the holy Scriptures, and testimonies of the most ancient writers, that albeit he might quarrel at many buy matters, yet he was not able to avoid the substance of mine arguments, and answers: determined not to adventure his credit, in publishing any reply under his own name, and therefore turned over the business to one Bristol, whose impudence being approved in his Motives, and demands, was thought more meet to take so desperate a cause in hand. Bristol himself on the otherside, perceiving that it was impossible for him to make any show of reply, that might satisfy any mean wit, if he should follow me orderly and directly, from point to point, as I have followed Allen, durst not once undertake that lawful course of replying, which I have always observed in answering, but by confounding of many divers matters together, hath sought to bring a great mist upon the cause, under which he might rather hide then defend his master Allen, and he himself like a pretty man, now and then start out and give a perilous blow, and so retire into his cloud again. For this purpose it was not sufficient for him, leaving all order of replying, to take upon him the confutation of two books of mine, of most diverse matters, in one of his, but that the confusion might be greater, and the light of truth appear much lesser, he must defend two more of his own. So that having now jumbled together no less than six treatises in one, two of Allens, two of mine, and two of his own, he thinketh himself so well armed with darkness and confusion, that if he cannot have a conquest, yet he may be sure to have a starting hole to hide himself in. And first he findeth great fault that his motives and demands (which most men for the great folly showed in them despised) were not first answered: dreaming that my books should never have been put in print, but to make a show of answer to his motives and demands. But how vainly he guesseth, mine answer printed, to those wooden works of his, doth plainly discover. Of like vanity and more impudence it is, that he affirmeth constantly, that I was feign to set forth those books without privilege (albeit I say the one was authorized) distinguishing between privilege and authority, wherein I know not what the peevish quarreler meaneth. For this I am sure, that both those books, had such approbation and licence to be printed, as all books concerning religion ought to have, by the Queen's injunctions, which I call & count a sufficient authorizing. Concerning privileging, I suppose Bristol cavilleth, because he knoweth not what the name of a privilege signifieth, for which I will remit him to some lawyer to learn. But where I affirmed, that my book was authorized two years before it was imprinted, he doubteth whether he may believe my bare word, because I writ in the same, We believe that the Catholic Church hath no chief governor upon earth, but Christ, unto whom all power is given in heaven & in earth. But I pray thee Bristol, what doth this hinder thee to believe me upon my bare word? Thou demandest a question in the margin, What if the Church were in England only, or one were King of all Countries, sometime where it is? I might, according to salomon's advise, answer thee according to thy folly, & defer my resolution until either the Church be in England only: or that one were King of all Countries where it is. But lest thou shouldst think thyself wise in thy foolish question, I answer, that if either of both those cases should come to pass, which are both impossible: Christ should still retain his office and power that he hath in heaven and earth, and that one King of England, or of many countries, should have no more authority over the Church, than the Queen of England now hath over that portion of the Church, that is in England, or over all those portions that are in other her several dominions.  
But whereas Bristol saith, my former book cometh forth only by permission to make a show of somewhat for a time, & if after it chance of some Papist to be dashed out of countenance, than the shame to be no man's but only Fulkes: I wish the gentle reader to consider two things. First, that he will charge no man with the shame of mine errors, if any he can prove, but me only, as in deed there is no reason that any man should bear the blame of my folly, but myself, & least of all the church of God. Secondly that by quarreling at the want of privilege and authorizing of my writings, he acknowledgeth this his own book of reply, to lack neither privilege nor authority, so that if I not only dash it out of countenance, but also show it to be void of wisdom, learning and truth, the shame shall not be private to Bristol alone, but common to all the popish faction beyond the sea, & on this side the same, by whose common consent it seemeth to be penned and set forth. Bristows reply is contained in 13. Chapters, to every of which, and to every part of them, as they are entitled by himself, I will answer in order, that they which list to confer my Rejoinder with his Reply, may see I seek not by confusion to cover any falsehood, but by orderly proceeding to bring the truth to light.   

Faults escaped. The first number signifieth the page, the last the number of the lines.  
Page 14 line 9 for aid, lege, end 15 36 Haeie l. How 16 28 ap l. cap 24 l. 27 28 etc., read Apotactites Encratites etc. 33 23 mortuis l. mortuos 35 31 con 30 l. con 3 37 1 birth l. death 38 24 Constantine l. Constans 41 3 l. Papias 43 17 the l. their 9 suit l. state 45 l. 21 read, so I 46 14 ledging l. begging 55 31 err, but: l. err both, 65 10 & 16 l. Peter and Peter 71 30 ever l. even 76 2 l. 2 Tim 3 80 8 l. consent in the truth 101 17 disputing l. disproving 109 24 restored l. restrained 137 35 read sufficiently satisfied 138 33 course l. cause 148 31 l in the bliss 151 16 if l. of 152 29 true l. tree 156 2. hot l. whotter 25 l. infarced 158 10 l. in which he 20 applied l. replied 174 26 l. pieces 175 jam 3 l. john 3 194 25 l. Hierom ad Euagrium 196 14 l. rashness 203 36 authority l. austerity 205 10 l. he hath & li. 35 instinct l anstant 209 10 savour l. labour 229 29 function l. faction 230 3 l. not oppress 242 23 as l. is. & li. 29 gra l. gent 263 38 impuration l. impanation 265 35 lake l. book 281 28 enjoining l. enjoying 282 1 l. Constantinus line 3 l. Melciades li. 5. l. de vita 285 19 sanctifieth l. saith 287 3 l. seeing 298 19 computation l. translation 299 2 now l. not 301 25 teacheth l. toucheth 302 20 l. Midrash 309 6 l. conveniency 311 2 harp l. hard 321 3 there l. three 332 30 priests l. praises 338 35 l. which in such sense 350 5 but l. by 353 35 like by l. by and by 356 13 l. look it by 357 29 l. jupiter Corinthius, and li. 31 Xanthicus 358 9 chap l. point 361 38 accept l. excepting 352 24 l. but seeing 361 12 held l. geld 387 26 Sacraments l. Sacramentaries 388 7 that l. the 388 31 l. Mat Hom 11 402 15 l. priests and li. 29 as long 408 10 l. Seraphical. li. 14 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 413 12 l. determinasset 431 13 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 437 21 protest l. protect 442 31 work l. want 446 13 stranger l. strong 449 31 l. work? In 32 l. mysteries: yet 450 34 l. Gennadius 456 3 nor l. or 460 36 l. of Terah 461 17 l. not to be 464 8 l. benedectione 472 25 l. put out as 473 11 l. a pledge 33 partly l. but Saunder saith 477 16 yea l. we 498 12 flesh l. fish 500 22 l. faithfully 506 4 l. may be 512 32 l. chapter being moved by 33 l. his spiritual 518 32 his l. this 528 put out, often 536 9 we l. ye 556 18 l. 1500 years ago 557 29 l. sufficiently 558 8 l. should not 563 16 l figurative 568 19 l. tokens 572 9 l. as Angels 610 1 l. our 611 7 specially l. figuratively 634 20 l but in 639 23 put out which 651 6 l. Sedulius 2. & 12 corrupt l. count & 18 holy l. unholy 667 24 l. times 669 24 they l. that 676 27 offences l. oftennes 678 9 l. Gennadius 682 13 to the earth l. on earth 678 17 eating l. entering 695 13 Ephes 3 l. Constantinople 698 3 after the body, put in these words, Members of Christ your mystery is set on the table, you. li. 5 after subscribe put in these words, Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ and do est answer amen 699 6 l. of a 708 1 once l. ours 713 17 or l. of & 21 die l. by 717 26 apposeth l. opposeth 726 7 for Saunder l. jewel & 8 after eaten, put in Saunder 737 22 promised l. performed 741 27 alteri l. atteri & 30 halteri l atteri & 37 washing l. wasting 754 34 l. at Wittenberg 16 death l. deity 766 37 l. of bread 776 29 this l. these.   

A REJOINDER TO Bristow'S REPLY IN DEFENCE OF ALLENS SCROLL OF ARTICLES AND BOOK OF PURGATORY.  By W. F. D. in divinity. 

The first Chapter.  
I will show briefly that Fulke confesseth, out of the true Church 
Bristol.  to be no salvation.  
FVlke hath always believed 
Fulke.  since god gave him knowledge of his truth, & therefore freely confessed, that out of the true Church of Christ, there can be no salvation. But whereas Bristol inferreth that it is openly practised in the Popish Church, to take in men by Baptism first, and then by reconciliation to receive them if any went out, or were cast out: thereby to insinuate, that the Popish Church is the true Church, it is an argument void of all consequens. For if the ceremonial outward practice of baptism & reconciliation, were able to prove the practisers to be the true Church, not only the papists, but all other sects of heretics practising the same, should be the true Church. This is the first argument, and as good as the best he maketh, to prove the heresy of Popery to be the true Church of Christ.   

CAP. II.  
That he confesseth the known Church of the first 600 yearès 
Bristol.  after Christ and the known members thereof.  
I believe that the Church of Christ, hath continued from the Apostles unto this day, and shall do from 
Fulke.  henceforth to the end of the world. And I do confess that for 600. years and more, after Christ, the doctrine of salvation in all necessary articles was taught in the known and visible Church, although with all, in the later times, was received much corruption. I acknowledge also the ancient writers, Bishops, Emperors and Monks of those times, to have been members of the same visible Church. But whereas Bristol saith, to that I add of the late Emperors, I signify that I mean the Emperors Constantine, jovian, Valentinian, etc. to have been such as I would wish for: I answer, he is no good interpreter of my meaning. For although in comparison of the later Emperors, they were much more excellent, yet I never meant to acknowledge them to be such, as I would wish for: For both in the religion and in their manners, divers things are found, which I would wish had been more agreeable to the word of God, & yet were they in their time, very godly and Christian Princes, holding the foundation of Christ. I hope, to their eternal salvation.  
Other bymatters there be in this Chapter, in which I am carped of Bristol. First, that ignorantly I affirm, somewhere, namely Purg. 371. that the controversy between the Britain's and Saxons about the celebration of Easter, was the same, that was between Victor Bishop of Rome, and the Christians of Asia: whereas I said, they defended a ceremony received of the East Church, even as the East church did long before against Victor 〈◊〉. of Rome: for they defend it by example and authority of S john the Evangelist, Bed. hist. lib. 3. cap. 25. and so did the Asians, Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24.  
Secondly where I say, that Athanasius and a few other, that were banished and persecuted, were the true Catholic Church: he noteth in the margin, such is his skill in the story of that time: Belike he is offended, that I say they were but a few, that took part with Athanasius. How small or great my skill is in the story of that time, Bristows practise of logic is but little, which remembreth not that many & few are relatives, and spoken in comparison: I say again they were but few in comparison of the Arrians, that took part with Athanasius against his adversaries, when he was banished. How many counsels held the Arrians in the East against the truth? The Emperor himself infected with the heresy: let the world judge where the greater show of multitude was, with the Emperor, and with the counsels; or with Athanasius and his fautors. Yea when Liberius Bishop of Rome in the West, had subscribed to the same heresy of the Arrians, & Constantius after both his brethren were dead, ruled both in the East, and the West: what think you was the vaunting multitude of the Arrian faction, insulting against the true Christians, calling them heretics, Homousians, Athanasians, & c? Vincentius Lyrinensis saith: Arrianorum vene●●● non iam portiunculam quandam, sed penè totum orbem contaminaverat, ade●ut prope cunctis latini sermonis episcopis, partim vi, partim fraud deceptis, caligo quaedam mentibus offunderetur: The poison of the Arrians had defiled not now a little portion, but almost all the world, insomuch that almost all the Bishops of the Latin speech, partly by force, partly by fraud being deceived, a certain mist covered their minds. You see what skill this proud censor hath of the history of that time.  
Last of all, he saith I make a proper distribution, the Popes of all ages, to be theirs, and yet the Apostles and doctors to be mine. But he maketh an unproper application of the name of Popes to the Bishops of Rome of all ages, where as a great number of the most ancient were godly men, and of true religion, members of the same Church whereof the Apostles and Doctors were, and not antichristian tyrants, as the later sort of degenerated bishops have showed themselves to be.  
I do not mean to prosecute every trifling matter after this manner, but to let the reader see by these few what great pith is in his marginal notes and frivolous quarrels.   

CAP. III.  
That he confesseth the foresaid true Church to have made so plainly with us, in very many of the same controversies of 
Bristol.  this time, that he is fain to hold, that the true Church may err, and also hath erred, but not his Caluinicall Church.  
I confess indeed, that the Popish Church holdeth some errors, that were held within the compass of 
Fulke.  600. years, but them not very many, nor the greatest controversies, nor universally held in all that time, but in the later part of it only, nor with such poison of pernicious errors, as they are now held by the Papists.  
Also I confess, that the true Church may err, and hath erred, yea even that Church whereof Calvin was a teacher, and that Calvin himself in some things both might err and did err, although Bristol like a scoffing parasite, doth except the same. But where he chargeth me to confess, sometime, also the long continuing of the Church in incorruption, thereby to convince me of contradiction: I answer, if he charge me with confessing the continuing of the Church in incorruption, for 600. years next after Christ, he lieth in his throat, I never confessed any such continuance: If I had affirmed that it contained after the first planting in incorruption for a long season, I might say without contradiction, that afterward it was corrupted with divers errors, which I have so proved, that Bristol himself cannot deny them. But I must follow his sections of this Chapter.  
The first part that the true Church may err. 
Bristol.   
I confess the true Church may err. 
Fulke.   
The second part that the true Church did also err: and in the 
Bristol.  same points as we do now err in. 1. Where he chargeth them with many points together.  
I confess the true Church did also err, and in some 
Fulke.  of those points, that you now err in, although they nothing so grossly as you. Those many abuses and corruptions which I confessed to have entered into the Church, immediately after the Apostles time, which the devil planted as a preparative for Antichrist, I did not mean to be many points of Popery, and therefore are here fraudulently foisted in, to urge my confession, further than it stretcheth by my meaning. By Antichrist in deed I mean the Pope, as the chief head of that misshapen body, to whom I confess, that the Arrian, Sabellian, Nestorian and all other old heresies, were a preparative, although, he directly acknowledge them not, but hath his heresy, or rather apostasy, compact of all errors, in that he is an adversary both to the person and office of our saviour Christ.  
Particular errors, that I confess to have been taken of the Gentiles, or heretics, he numbereth 8. The sign of the cross, from the Valentinians: Oblations for the days of birth and death, from the Gentiles: prescript times of fasting, & immoderate extolling of sole life in the ministers of the Church, from the montanists, Manichees, Tacianistes: Prayer for the dead, of the montanists: purgatory fire, from the Origenistes: Hierom almost condemning of second marriages, from Tertullian: The name of sacrifice, from the Gentiles: Also in the later writers, invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and diverse superstitious and superfluous ceremonies, confessed by me to be maintained.  
2 As touching Vigilantius and invocation of Saints by it 
Bristol.  self.  
I confess that Ambrose, Augustine and Hierom 
Fulke.  held invocation of Saints to be lawful, which is an error.  
3 As touching jovinian of fasting, of Virginities merit, of 
Bristol.  Votaries Marriage.  
If jovinian contemned Christian fasts, he erred, neither 
Fulke.  do we take his part therein, nor yet in making marriage equal with virginity, in all respects. For the marriage of Votaries, Bristol urgeth me with no confession: but I charge him with a shameless falsification of my words, which he pretendeth to rehearse, as a great absurdity. Purg. 402. We neither boast upon Augustine nor Ambrose, when they descent from our doctrine: Neither are ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius, when they agree therewith: But my words are these: Seeing God himself is the father of that doctrine, which we have received by his holy word, we neither boast upon Augustine nor Ambrose, when they descent therefrom: neither are ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius, when they agree therewith.  
4 As touching Ceremonies. 
Bristol.   
I confess they had many superfluous Ceremonies, yea such as the Papists themselves have not, for the 
Fulke.  most part.  
5 As touching Purgatory and prayer for the dead. 
Bristol.   
I acknowledge, that prayer for the dead is an ancient 
Fulke.  error, the opinion of purgatory in the Latin church, is not so old, by many hundred years: in the Greek Church, it was never received.  
What he saith of particular Doctors, and their particular 
Bristol.  times for it.  
I say, that most of the particular Doctors, from the 
Fuke.  time of Montanus, have been infected with the error of praying for the dead, but none to be showed before him. The time of the first Nicen Council (Bristol saith) is enough for any Christian man. Who ever heard such a blockish reason? If the Nicen Council had decreed prayers for the dead to be used without the authority of the holy scriptures, it had not been enough for any Christian man to believe. The Nicen Council made the Bishop of Alexandria equal with the Bishop of Rome, which the Papists will not allow. cap. 6. The same council decreed, that men should stand and not kneel in public prayers, yet is no man bound to this decree, neither do the Papists themselves observe it. Cap. 20. But my ignorance is noted of Bristol, for saying that superstition was riper in the Latin Church, where the seat of Antichrist was appointed to be set up, not knowing that all the old heresies, have sprung of the Greeks: against whom were held the first four general Counsels. A pithy reason, showing no less Logic than knowledge of the Church story. Four heresies were condemned by four counsels, therefore all old heresies sprung of the Grecians. But I will ask of Bristol, whether Novatus or Novatianus captain of the novatians, was of the Latin or Greek Church? jovinian & Vigilantius are counted of him to be as great heretics, as Arrius and Macedonius, but whence did they spring, out of Greece or from the Latins? What shall I name the Donatists, Pelagians, Celestians, priscillianists, all which sprang out of the Latin Church? And yet it is true, that Vincentius affirmeth, that until the days of Stephanus, the Bishops of the Roman Church, had always earnestly defended the integrity of religion, once received, which he speaketh not as a singular praise of that Church only, for he saith of the same matter immediately before, Exemplis talibus plena sunt omnia, All places are full of such examples. And that which Bristol citeth out of Ruffinus in exp. Symb, that no heresy did spring at Rome, is to be understood only of such heresies as he speaketh of before, against the danger of which, some clauses were added to the creed: For otherwise, Ruffinus could not forget what he himself had translated out of Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 33. of Novatus, which being a Priest of the Church of Rome, was author of the heresy of the novatians.  
2 What he sayeth of the whole Church in some of those 
Bristol.  times.  
I say the practice of prayer for the dead is not general, 
●Fulke.  because it is not to be found in the most ancient times. Bristol asketh, if nothing be general, but that I find: as though he could find any thing, for 200▪ years, but in Tertullian the Montanist. But the later practice for places he sayeth is general: if I should urge him to prove it, he could not do it. I confess it was common, but for all the later time, it was not general. The Waldenses, for 500 of the last years, practised it not, and almost in every age, some are noted, which regarded it not, or denied it.  
3. To what Origen he confesseth the doctors to refer it, to wit, unto scripture and tradition of the fathers. 
Bristol.   
I confess, that some of the fathers refer the custom 
Fulke.  of praying for the dead, to the Scriptures, and some to the tradition of the Apostles, but neither of both truly. Bristol compareth the case with fasting, whereof Augustine sayeth, that it is evidently commanded in scripture, but the days not prescribed: So is prayer for the dead, but the days, times, and particular prayers, are referred to the tradition. I answer, when we see as good scripture for prayer for the dead, as we see for fasting, we will say the cases are like.  
How Tertullian denied, prayer and oblation for the dead to be taken out of the scriptures, is referred to the ninth Chapter, where it shall be answered.  
But he is fain to deny (sayeth Bristol) the most certain works of the Apostles scholars, Clemens Romanus, and Dionysius Areopagita, saying that we have them of some counterfeiting knave, etc. (quoting for my saying) Pur. 268. which I desire the reader to peruse, and tell me how honest a man he is, that chargeth a man to say of the works of Clemens and Dionyse, that which I speak only and expressly of the counterfeit epistles of Clemens. Concerning the change of the old Liturgies: we shall hear more in the sixth Chapter.  
4 He contraiewise feareth not, nor basheth not to say, they 
Bristol.  had it from the devil and his limbs.  
I see no cause, why I should fear or bash to affirm, 
Fulke.  that all errors came from the devil, who is a liar and the father of lies: Neither is it any absurdity to say, that the yearly oblations of thanksgiving for the dead, are heathenish, as well as the oblations for the births. But it is an impudent slander, that he chargeth mine own mouth to confess, that the whore of Babylon is the church, at the farthest by S. Augustine's time, which hath patched up her purgatory, & sacrifices for the dead: for purgatory and sacrifice for the dead, was scarce hatched in S. Augustine's time, when Augustine himself confessed it might be doubted, whether there be any such purging fire or no.  
5. As touching the Pope's supremacy. 
Bristol.   
Concerning the Pope's primacy, he chargeth me to teach, that the Church vanished quite away, upon a souden, 
Fulke.  when Phocas sold the primacy to Bonifacius, and yet no man then in the world, that went out from the Pope. The first point is a shameless slander, for I never taught that the church vanished quite away: the second is true, if it be rightly understood: no man went from the Pope, as from a true member of the church, but the Pope rather went out of the church, into an antichristian tyranny. But understanding his saying to be, that no man departed from the Pope's authority, it is utterly false: for notwithstanding the sale of Phocas, the Greek church never yielded to his supremacy. The church of Ravenna in Italy, long time after withstood his tyranny, and was separated from him, in causa autocephalias, that she would have no head over her, but he● own bishop, as the histories affirm. Bristol, to excuse the Pope for doing contrary to Gregory's reproof of the bishop of Constantinople, sayeth, that he never useth the style of universal bishop, but of s 〈…〉 servorum, the servant of servants, as though it was for the bare style, and usurpation of the title, that Gregory was so earnest, and not for the universal authority, which was claimed by that style, in which respect Gregory of humility, the rest of his successors of hypocrisy, called themselves, servants of the servants of God.  
Now at length Bristol allegeth three causes of this his tedious rehearsal of my sayings: first, that the reader may see, in how many points we descent from them, whom we confess to have been of the true church. I answer, so long as we agree in the foundation, we are all of one church. The second cause, that the reader may see, I confess the Papists to agree with them of the true church, in the same. A great glory, that you agree with them in a few errors, and dissent in the most weighty matters of salvation. Thirdly, that I have not, for these points, or any depending of these, just cause to deny the Papists the true church etc. If you erred only in these points, as they did, holding all other truth, which those ancient fathers held, we would no more deny you to be members of the true church, than we do them: but seeing beside these errors, you hold many blasphemous heresies, which they never held, and utterly deny the office of Christ, the foundation of our salvation, therefore we justly deny you to be of the true church of Christ. Neither is your excuse to be admitted, that you err by authority of them, who if the truth had been as plainly revealed unto them, out of the scriptures, as it is to you, would never have so obstinately defended their errors, but as they always professed, yielded to the truth, against custom, prescription of time, authority of counsels, or any practice whatsoever.   

CAP. FOUR  
That he chargeth the said primitive true church, with sundry 
Bristol.  errors wherewith he neither doth, nor will, nor can charge us.  
I affirm that diverse godly fathers of the primitive 
Fulke.  church, held sundry errors, which the Papists hold not at this day. Also that the ancient church erred in some points and practice, wherewith I will not charge the popish church, except they charge themselves. But that I should confess (as Bristol sayeth) That there may be a company which erreth, not only some principal members, but also the whole body of it, and which erreth obstinately, and moreover, which erreth the grossest errors that can be, & them 〈◊〉 no small number, and yet the same company may be the tru● church. This is utterly false, I never made such confession, neither can Bristol bring any words of mine, that sound to the same effect: and therefore I here charge him before God and the world, for a shameless liar, and an ungodly slanderer. As for the errors wherewith I charge either the ancient writers, or the ancient church of Rome, do follow afterward discussed in the sixth Chapter.   

CAP. V.  
What reason he rendereth, why they in those ancient time●, 
Bristol.  had the true church notwithstanding these their errors.  
First repeating my confessions: That the true church 
Fulke.  may err, that it hath erred in some articles wherein we err, & in many other wherein we do not err, whereof it followeth plainly (qd Bristol) that neither our erring, nor these our errors, no nor any other our errors, are alone sufficient for him to deprive us of the true church. Mark this consequens of Bristol, some errors which the Papists, hold common with the old church, cannot deprive them of the true church, ergo none other errors that they hold, contrary to the ancient church, are alone sufficient to deprive them. This is popish logic. And yet I will in this argument, charge his conscience rather than his science: for common sense abhorreth such reasoning, from the particular to the universal.  
But let us see, if such reason as alloweth the fathers to have had the true church, notwithstanding their errors, may serve the Papists to prove them the true church, their errors notwithstanding. The reason I allege, that the fathers had the true church, is because they held the only foundation jesus Christ, and the article of justification by the only mercy of God. Now (saith Bristol) who knoweth not, that we believe in the only son of God, and in the only mercy of God, and that therefore we look not to be saved by our own works, that is, which we did without him, in Paganism, judaisme, or Caluinisme, in heresy or deadly sin, etc. but only by his works, that is, by his sacraments and the good deeds that of his great mercy, he hath created in us in Christ jesus? etc. therefore the same reason serveth us, notwithstanding our errors.  
I answer, your minor is false: you believe not in the only begotten son of God, because you believe not in God. Cyprian de duplici Martyrio, sayeth: Non credit in Deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam: He believeth not in God, which placeth not in him alone the trust of all his felicity. You place not your trust in God alone, for you trust in your merits, yea, in the merits of others, both living and dead, and in an hundredth things beside God alone. Secondly, where you say, you believe in the only mercy of God, it is false: for you believe no justification by the only mercy and grace of God, which excludeth all works and merits, as the Apostle sayeth, Rom. 11. Thirdly, you says you believe to be saved by his sacraments, which in deed after a sort, are said to save us, namely, not as principal efficient causes, but as instruments and means that god ●seth to confirm his promises, which proceed of his only grace and mercy. Fourthly you say, you believe to be saved by those good deeds, that God of his mercy hath created in us: which plainly declareth that you look not to be saved, by the only grace & mercy of God, purchased by the redemption of Christ: but by such good works as proceed from yourselves, although you ascribe unto the grace of God, that you be able to do them, as both the Pharisee did, which justified himself by his own works, and yet acknowledged God to be the author of them, in him, Luk. 18. And the Pelagians also affirmed generally, that by God's grace we are saved, because God of his grace hath given such a law, by keeping whereof, we might attain to salvation.  
But you cite S. Paul, Tit. 3. to show, that his mercy & sacrament may stand together, which no man denieth: yet can you not show, that his mercy is so tied to his sacrament, that he saveth not without it. For Abraham was justified by faith, before he was circumcised, and received circumcision as a seal of the faith he had, being uncircumcised: Rom. 4.  
And where the Apostle speaketh of works generally, excluding them from being cause of our salvation, you restrain them only to works done before baptism: for this cursed gloze you make upon the text, Not for any works of * righteousness which we did (before baptism say you) but for his mercy, he hath saved us by baptism. But that S. Paul excludeth all manner of works, done by us, from justification, the sentence following declareth: That being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. For grace and works can never stand as a joint efficient cause, Rom. 11. but the one of necessity, excludeth the other. As for the receiving of the Sacraments is no work of ours, as you truly say, but an accepting of the grace, which God giveth. The place Ephes. 2. which you ●ite to prove, that we are saved by good works, done after baptism, is clean against you, if you had rehetsed the whole text. You are saved (saith S. Paul) by grace, through faith, (and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God) not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath prepared, that we should walk in them.  
The argument of S. Paul is taken out of the effect, Good works are the effect and aid of our justification, ergo not the efficient cause thereof. And mark again, that he saith we are saved by grace and not of works. Mark also the reason why we are not saved by any works done by man: namely lest any should boast. For boasting of man, is not excluded, so long as any works that he doth, may be the cause of his salvation. For if Abraham be justified by works, he hath whereof to boast, but not with God: Rom. 4. where is then boasting? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by the law of faith. Wherefore not only the works done before baptism, but all other are excluded from justification, that no man should boast as the Pharisee, but that all glory of our salvation, might be ascribed wholly to God by jesus Christ. You therefore building salvation upon good works, done after baptism, do manifestly build upon another foundation, than the only true foundation jesus Christ: and therefore, your errors notwithstanding, you cannot (as the old fathers erring in small matters) be yet the church of God. What Flaccius Illyricus an intemperate man judged of S. Hierom, I have not to answer for him.   

CAP. VI  
An answer first to all the foresaid errors, wherewith he 
Bristol  hath charged the Church of the first 600. years: and afterward likewise to all errors, that he layeth to the Church of these late● years.  
Hitherto we had nothing in a manner, but a rehearsal 
Fulke.  of such matters as he affirmeth to be confessed by me, now he promiseth to prove, that notwithstanding any thing I object, the Church hath never erred, and moreover, that it can never err. How well he performeth his promise, we shall see by considering his answers and arguments.  
Fulkes zeal in answering for Calvin, and others being in 
Bristol.  deed of his Church.  
First he chargeth me to hold, that our Church at 
Fulke.  this present, doth not err, and that I never say so much, as plainly, that it may err. In deed I am thoroughly persuaded, that our Church in matters necessary to salvation, doth not err. But when I say plainly, that not only every particular Church, but even the whole Catholic Church on earth of every age, may err in matters not necessary to salvation, what an impudent creature is this, to affirm, that I never say plainly, that our Church may err? He that saith plainly, every man ●● a liar, doth he not say plainly that both Fulke and Bristol are liars? But my zeal for Calvin is wonderful great, in his opinion, for I say he erreth not, but the fathers, and the whole Church have erred. A man were as good to reason with a post, as with such a senseless Papist: I say Calvin erreth not in such points, as he is slandered of by Allen, therefore I say he erreth not at al. I say and cry out as loud as I can, every man erreth: and yet in Bristow'S ears I say Calvin erreth not. The like zeal I show for Master jewel, whose learned labours I commend to the judgement of the world. And yet he hath quit himself so well (saith Bristol) that the very reading of his answer, hath turned many earnest Protestants, into earnest Catholics, as both by the numbers, and by the nobleness of the persons is notoriously known. I think the number and the nobility of the converts is all alike. There runneth such a tale of Copley, the great baron of Hay, created by the Spanish, I wots not how, Lord of the Maze, an ancient rotten house in Southwark, that he should be so converted, if some popish treason discovered caused him not to feign such a souden and strange conversion. But yet Bristol cannot abide, that I should exhort English papists, to read that book, and pray to God for direction in the truth. No sir (saith he) that is not the way to truth, no more then to swallow poison and pray, is the way to get or keep health of body. Alas poor Bristol, hast thou so soon forgot, that which thou saidst immediately before, that jewels book is such a sovereign antidote, that hath expelled the poison of Protestants from so many and so noble personages, and made them so earnest Catholics, that thou now wouldst have them fly from it, as from a poison? We see thy witty policy, it is not the way to truth (thou sayest) to read our answers: but it is the way to continue men in error, to suffer them to see nothing but that you say yourselves. A sure way to win credit, but yet with fools only: For he that dare not let his adversaries answer be seen, showeth plainly that he dare not abide the trial, but requireth all men to believe him upon his bare word. Where you say, I should rather exhort men to read the ancient writers, I answer, that is needless, for such whom I exhort to read master jewels reply, namely such as cannot wade well out of these controversies without such conference, as they may see between master Harding, and master jewel.  

The first part concerning the errors that he laid (ap. 3. par. 2.) both to the fathers, and to us, and first of the cross and images. 
Bristol.   
First, where I charge them, that the estimation of the sign or figure of the cross was taken of the Valentinians, 
Fulke.  that the reader may wonder at my audacity, he saith, Irenaeus nor Epiphanius speak not a word of the figure, nor sign, nor use of the cross, but tell that those heretics invented 30. gods called Aeones, and in them two or 3. Christ's, and one of the Christ's, they called Crux, etc. what say you Bristol, speak they not a word, either of the figure, sign, or use of the cross? I could refer you to the 14. Chapter of Irenaeus, where he telleth that they call the Zodiac (whose moving is overthwart the first moving of heaven) an image of the cross. And when they both tell you, that the cross among the Valentinians, had a double use of confirmation and separation, speak they not a word of the use of the cross? No (say you) they invented 30 gods called Aeones, and among them diverse Christ's, whereof the cross was one. It is a shame to lie on the devil. The Valentinians did not call their Aeones gods, but emissions of the first great invisible & infinite Acone. Neither was the cross, any of those 30. Aeones, ages, or worlds. For they are all thirty named in Irenaeus, before he cometh to the cross: videlicet 8. of the first emission, ten of the second; and twelve of the third. Neither did they call the cross Christ, but the virtue of Christ, confirmative & separative, such as healed the woman of the bloody issue. Unto which they gave diverse names, calling it in a manner as you papists do, the redeemer, the saviour, the sanctifier, the apoynter of the bounds, the bringer unto further matters, the most perfect end or termination, etc. But all this while, you will say there is no mention of the figure of the cross, but of a feigned mystery or imagination. Then you must understand, that of these imagined mysteries, they affirmed there were sensible and material things in the world, made to be similitudes and images: Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the cross that Christ suffered upon, and all other crosses made to the similitude of it, of which S. Paul by their fantasy should say, God forbid that I should rejoice but in the cross of Christ, etc. whose figures that they used in their consecration and baptizing, it may appear in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the cross be not named, yet their terms of redemption, confirmation & division which they used, in pouring on of water, anointing them, do infinyate, that they used some signs of the cross to whom they gave those titles, as before is showed. Finally when it is certain by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those similitudes and images in material things, were made unto the honour of their invisible and spiritual fantasies, there is no doubt but they had in great price the material image or sign of the cross, for reverence of that high mystery whereof they dreamt the same to be an image or similitude.  
Concerning the images of jesus, which the Carpocratians and other like heretics made, and worshipped, Bristol saith, it toucheth not the papists, because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers, like as the Samaritans joined the worshipping of false Gods, with the worshipping of our Lord. If I should object unto you, the worshipping of the images of saint Sunday, saint Hardhuffe, saint Vncomber, yea saint Christopher, and saint George on horseback, which all were mere Idols after your own definition of Idols, I wot not how you could quite yourself, from the case of the Samaritans. But Irenaeus and Epiphanius charge the heretics, not only for joining the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of jesus, but also for feigning the Image of jesus, and worshipping it. Irenaeus against Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutely, Viuntur autem & imaginibus & incantationibus, & invocationibus &c. They use images, and enchantments, & invocations and all the rest of superstitions. Here he placeth the use of images with enchantments, invocation of spirits, and other superstitions of magic, and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith, Etiam imagines quasdam etc. Also they have certain images painted, and some made of other matter, saying that the form of Christ was made by Pilate, in that time which jesus was with men. If it had not been a fault to have had these counterfeit images, Irenaeus would not have joined it among other heretical practices of the Carpocratians. The like saith Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes, Hear. 24 Habent imagines etc. They have images painted in colors, some also have them of gold and silver and other matter, which they say, are the images of jesus, and that these images of jesus were made under Pontius Pilate, when he was conversant amongst men. And these images they have closely. Moreover they have the images of certain Philosophers etc. Who seethe not by this context, that Epiphanius accounted it heretical, to have such images in any use of religion, although they had not made any other images of philosophers beside? Also against the Collyridians, which with certain cakes offering as the Papists do candles, worshipped the image of the virgin Marie: he asketh, what this desire of making images can be, else, but a devilish enterprise? yet the Collyridians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the virgin Marie. Neither doth he simply charge them that they worshipped her, as a God, but sive velut ipsam, etc. Whether these foolish women offer this cake to her, as worshipping Marie herself: or whether they go about to offer the said stinking offering for her, the whole matter is foolish and strange, and a fraud and deceit of the motion of diuelles. Therefore that I extend my speech no longer, let that which hath been said, suffice. Let Marie be in honour, let the Lord be worshipped. And what think you, would he have judged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women, to the images of the virgin Marie, which could not abide to see a vail in which was painted the image of Christ, or some saint, hanging in a Church of Christians, but rend it in pieces, at Anablatha? Epiph. Epist. ad joan, Hieron. But for the defence of Images: Bristol referreth the reader to Sanders book of Images: and I likewise to my confutation of the same. In the mean time, it is a small matter, that Bristol urgeth my confession, that crossing at every step, (which is, saith he, a making and great religion of Images) is referred by Tertullian unto tradition of the Apostles, seeing that is showed to have a later and corrupter beginning, and other fables beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolic tradition.   

2 Of invocation of saints, and worshipping of their relics. 
Bristol.   
You remember since the 3. chapter (saith Bristol) by your own report that the true Church counted Vigilantius 
Fulke.  an heretic for denying the invocation of Saints, and the worshipping of their relics. I answer, that I remember no such matter, neither do I find any where, that Vigilantius was publicly condemned for an heretic, in his time, but only in the private judgement of Jerome, although Bernardus long after account him little better. But of worshipping the relics of Saints, and of their images, the case (say you) is all one: then by Hieromes judgement, neither of both is to be worshipped. For we worship not, saith he, the relics of Martyrs, no nor the sun and Moon, no not Angels and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim &c: But we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may worship him whose witnesses the martyrs are. By which saying, and other to the same effect, it is manifest, that although Jerome defended some honouring, or moderate reverence of relics, yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them, and much more of their images. Where I say, the superstition of relics is received of the Ossenes: Bristol saith it pertaineth not to them, because the Ossenes worshipped them for Gods, whose relics they had in such, estimation. But that is false: for they held Marthys and Marthana for Saints, proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they never worshipped, but as a great Prophet and teacher, although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur, they were worshipped as Gods: meaning that worship which is proper unto God only, was given to them, as it is of Papists unto saints, whom they worship as God, giving that worship unto them, which is proper only unto God, as faith & invocation. But Bristol would have the snotty clouts of Thomas Becket, that were worshipped after his death, to be all one with the napkins and partletts, that were carried from the body of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out unclean spirits, when he lived: which napkins and partletts, yet he cannot prove either, that they were ever worshipped, or that they were reserved for relics, after the work of miracles was wrought by them. As for the argument that Chrysostom taketh, against the Pagans, of the relics of Babylas the Martyr, which he would have me to apply to my disease, was to the confusion of Idolatry and sorcery, not to the setting up or maintaining thereof. And what worship I pray you, was given to the relics of Babylas? If God showed miracles by the presence of his body in Daphne, as by the bones of Elizeus, yet it followeth not, that his body or ashes, were worshipped more than the bones of Elizeus were.  
Concerning invocation of Angels, which they have common with the Caianes, Bristol showeth, that the Caianes had other greater heresies, which the papists hold not, as though those greater errors could excuse this lesser.  
The superstition of Angels, that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians, and Collossians to beware of, he saith, they be clear of it, because in all their prayers, they conclude per Christum etc. Through Christ our Lord: as though they that taught the superstition of Angels, did clean exclude Christ, or that it was to be doubted, lest the Ephesians and Collosians, would forsake Christ, and cleave to Angels, but rather lest with the religion of Christ, as the chief, they would also admit the superstition of the Angels, whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati, bowed down in the worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith, which therefore held not the head, because they worshipped not him alone, but joined Angels in part of his glory. That Angels are ministering spirits, it proveth not, that therefore they must be prayed unto, but the contrary, for invocation is due only to him on whom we believe, which is God only. So much the more blasphemous is Bristol, that chargeth Saint john, Apoc. 1. to have prayed to the Angels, where he saith, Grace and peace be to you from him, that is, and was, and is to come: and from the 7. spirits, that are before his throne, and from jesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all ancient writers is, that the seven spirits are taken for the holy Ghost, which is seven fold in his graces, according to the prophecy of isaiah 11. The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, etc. And it is also evident, that S. john speaketh of the spirit of God as he was showed to him in the vision, according to the dispensation of his manifold gifts in the figure of the seven lamps which are the 7. spirits of God according to the number of seven Churches of Asia, to whom he sendeth the copy of his revelation, for the instruction of all Churches in the world. Apoc. 4. And albeit we should expound these seven spirits for seven Angels, as some late writers do, yet it followeth not, that S. john should pray unto them, in those words, but rather to God for their ministery to the preservation of the Churches: No more than if he should wish grace unto them from heaven, it followeth that he prayeth unto heaven. That phrase is often in the Psalms, wherein salvation or help is prayed to be sent from Zion, from the holy Hill, from the Temple, from heaven: and yet no man was so mad to say, that prayers was made to Zion, to the Hill, to the Temple, to heaven. And yet it is more monstrous, that he chargeth me to forget, that in the same book of the apocalypse, God doth promise to make the obstinate jews to come, and to adore before the feet of one Angel. And they shall know that I have loved thee etc. I speak unto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this book of Bristow'S and allowed it. Wast thou awake when thou diddest peruse this argument, and allowed it? Tell me by thy credit, is this the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia, of whom this is written to be understood, for one of those heavenly spirits concerning whose worship and invocation we now speak in this controversy? Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heaven? is any of those Angels neither hot nor cold in the service of God? hath any of them a name that he liveth and is dead? hath any of them left his first love? doth any of them suffer the woman jesabel to preach & c? Out upon thine impudence, if thou affirm all this, and fie upon thy negligence, if thou diddest peruse it and allow this argument, if thou be ashamed to affirm all the rest. As for thee Bristol, it shall be sufficient to hear thy Master reproved for thy fault at this time, to make the blush if any spark of honest shame be left in thy breast, that darest set abroad such an intolerable corruption of the holy scripture, against all wit and reason that ever was heard of.   

3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate, and from marriage. 
Bristol.   
Bristol would have the question of prescript fasting 
Fulke.  days and abstinence from flesh to be all one, as they are accounted among the Papists. But there is great difference. For Aerius which denied fasting days appointed by the church to be observed, did nevertheless as Augustine showeth out of Philaster, teach abstinence from flesh. Wherefore Bristol falsely chargeth me to confess, that the Papists have the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting days, common with the ancient fathers of the primitive church. For on their prescript fasting days (except for necessity) they did eat neither fish nor flesh, nor any thing until the evening. As for the abstinence from meats, against which jovinian did teach, was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to themselves, not only from flesh, but also from fish and wine also, as appeareth by Hieronyme, con. jovin. lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces, etc. Neither say we this (saith Hieronyme) that we deny fishes and the rest of meats, if a man's will may be taken in meat, but as we prefer virginity before marriage, so fasting and the spirit, before fullness & flesh. Likewise, in divers places, he speaketh of the abstinence from wine. Furthermore, he chargeth me to bring no proof of that I say, the fathers took prescript times of fasting and unmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergy, from the Tatianistes, Manichees; & montanists. If I brought no proof in that place, it was because I presupposed that Allen knew, what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius, lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed laws of fasting. And that the Manichees in their elects, and the Tatianistes in their perfectes, allowed not marriage, out of Epiphanius & Augustine. But where I charge the Papists which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh, Bristol sayeth, I take Richard for Robert, because the Aerians abstained from flesh, as the Manichees, Tatianistes, & montanists, as pertaining to the ill god, according to the heresy of the Valentinians. Admit it were so, yet how can either Richard or Robert dischardg themselves of the doctrine of devils and spirit of error, whose fruit is forbidding of marrying & eating of meats, 1. Tim. 4. which is heretical and abominable, for what cause of religion so ever it be? And seeing the Apostle chargeth them with hypocrisy, it is more probable that he speaketh against the Papists, than against those open blasphemers. But how proveth Bristol, that the Aerians were of the opinion of the Eucratites or Apotastites? Forsooth, because Augustine sayeth: Quidam perhibent istos sicut Eucratitas vel Apotastitas, non admittere ad communionem suam nisi continentes, & eos qui seculo ita renuntiaverint, ut propria nulla possideant, ab es●a tamen carnium non eos abstinere dicit Epiphanius: Philaster verò & hanc eye tribuit abstinentiam: Some say, that these men as the Eucratites or Apotastites do not admit into their society, but only such as contain from marriage, and have so renounced the world, that they possess no proper goods, yet Epiphanius sayeth not, that they abstain from eating of flesh: but Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence.  
The similitude (which Bristol by falsifying S. Augustine and displacing his words) would have to be in the whole sect of the Eucratites, is only in the abstinence from marriage and meats, and possessions, not in the opinion or cause for which they abstained. For seeing Aerius was an Arrian, he could not hold the plurality of Gods. For the Arrians so held the unity of the godhead, that they denied the Trinity of the persons in equal substance. And although he were the scholar of Eustachius, yet it followeth not that he held all points as his master did. Augustine chargeth him to have added these matters of his own. Beside that, diverse of Eustachius articles differ little from the opinion of the Papists, concerning the marriage of priests, and the abstinence from meats, howsoever the papists will not seem to be so boisterous as Eustachius in denying the kingdom of heaven to them that marry, and hope to them that eat flesh: yet Pope Syricius is affirmed to write, that they which be married be in the flesh, and cannot please God: Ep. ad Him. Tarrat. And what a dangerous matter the Papists count it, to eat flesh in times by them prohibited, all the world doth know.   

4 Of Ceremonies, and Liturgies. 
Bristol.   
The church is S. Augustine's times approved unprofitable 
Fulke.  and hurtful usages, because Augustine complaineth of them Ep. ad januar. 118. and wisheth, that they might be abrogated so soon as occasion served. Bristol quarrelling, that my quotation is missing which was but the printers omission: answereth that Augustine in the same epistle sayeth, Tamen ecclesia, etc. Yet the church of God approveth not any thing that is against the faith, or against good life. And I reply notwithstanding, that they may be unprofitable and hurtful usages. For so the same Augustine writeth in the same Epistle. Quamuis enim, etc. For although neither this can be found, how they are against the faith, yet they oppress the religion itself with servile burdens, which the mercy of God would have to be free with most few and manifest sacraments of celebrations, so that the condition of the jews is more tolerable, which although they have not known the time of liberty, yet they are subject to lawful burdens, & not to humane presumptions. But Bristol proceedeth and urgeth an other saying of Augustine, that if the whole church use any thing, it is a point of most insolent madness to call in question, whether that should be so used. I answer, we speak of approving of usages, not of any thing that is generally used. The church is S. Augustine's time, approved diverse unprofitable usages by secret consent, without open abrogation, which yet were diverse in diverse places.  
Where I prove they were unprofitable by this reason, that many of them are abrogated, he answereth, that is no good argument, for there might be good cause to abrogate them, although they came of the tradition of the Apostles: as the decree of not eating blood nor strangled, Act. 15. and the custom of the Apostles and of the churches of God for men to pray and prophesy bareheaded. To the former decree I reply, that it was temporal, and not meant by the makers to be eternal, but to bear with the infirmity of the jews for a time. To the other custom of praying or preaching bareheaded, whatsoever the pompous doctors of the popish church observe, I say it is perpetually to be observed for the distinction of the man and woman in covering and uncovering of the head, and the observing of natural comeliness in both, although for necessity of health a nightcap, kercheffe or such like covering, according to the custom of the country, be not absolutely prohibited. As for the forbidding of solemn fasts and genuflections on sundays, which Bristol sayeth was ordained by the Apostles to plant the article of the resurrection, and more straightly observed of the church against the Manichees, which might be abrogated, now that article is received and the heresy extinct is but a dream of his own head without proof, & so 〈…〉 et it pass, although I know not what he meaneth to say, that forbidding of solemn kneeling is still observed: for the papists kneel as solemnly on sundays as on other days. As for the liberty the church hath in altering of ceremonies, is never denied of me: but fond alleged of him, which pretendeth that traditions of the Apostles are as necessarily to be observed, as commandments of the scripture, referring every blind ceremony, whereof he knoweth none author, to tradition of the Apostles.  
Now concerning the Liturgies, he saith, Proclus answereth why Basil & Chrysostom changed the ancient Liturgies that were before them: he saith, forsooth they did but abridge and make shorter the Liturgy of S. james, which was too long for the people's cold devotion. But his reason will soon prove all the three Liturgies that now are called by the names of S. james, Basil, and Chrysostom, to be counterfeits, for there is small difference in the length of them, and in a manner none at all. As for the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, doth in deed name the Liturgies of S. james, Basil, & Chrysostom, but that proveth not these which we have at this day, to be the same, seeing there are manifest arguments to the contrary, as of the Monasteries spoken of in that which goeth under the name of james and of Alexius the Emperor, & Nicholas the bishop, in Chrysostom, which were not borne many hundredth years after his death. But that prayers for the dead, were used in the ancient Liturgies, that were before Chrysostom's time, Bristol sayeth he hath proved by plain demonstration, Cap. 3. where there is nothing but a saying of Chrysostom cited by me, in Epist. ad Philip. Hom. 3 Non frustra, etc. It hath not been in vain decreed by the Apostles, that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, memory should be made of them that are hence departed, etc. This saying proveth a remembrance, but not a prayer, nevertheless of this remembrance used in the elder times, they gathered prayers to be profitable. But more clearly, that it was a remembrance without prayers, it appeareth by Epiphanius, which interpreteth the same remembrance to be as a prayer for the sinners, and for the righteous of all sorts to be a distinction of them from our saviour Christ, count Aer. ser. 75.   

5 Of sacrifice: and for the dead. 
Bristol.   
The name of sacrifice, which the fathers used commonly for the celebration of the Lords supper, they took of 
Fulke.  the Gentiles, you might add and of the jews also, for that somewhere I do affirm. But how prove you, they had it of the scriptures? Because Christ said not this is I, that was borne of the virgin, but this is my body, this is my blood. The Apostle saith not of him that eateth unworthily, that he is guilty of Christ, but he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Why Bristol, dost thou dream? we speak of the name of sacrifice, whether it be used in scripture for the celebration of the lords supper. But if I knew (saith he) what is the sacrifice of alive thing, I should see that Christ is here as properly sacrificed in a mystical manner, as he was properly sacrificed on the cross in an open manner. Sir I know what S. Paul meaneth, when he exhorteth us to offer up our bodies a living sacrifice, Rom 12. & yet I am never the near to understand, your mystical sacrifice of a very body, under the mystery of shape and colour of bread.  
Also as blind as you make me, I see the Altar, Heb. 13. of which it is not lawful for the jews to eat, so long as they remain in judaisme, but that sacrifice is the death of Christ, whereof none that continue in observation of the levitical Law can be partakers. As for the table of the Lord, and the table of devils, in one form of speech, 1. Cor. 10. proveth no sacrifice of the lords table, opposite to the sacrifice of the Gentiles, but the feast of the lords table, contrary to the feast of the idol offerings, whereof the controversy was, and not of communicating with the sacrifices of the Gentiles. For if he had meant of the sacrifices of both, he would have na 〈…〉ed the altar of the Lord and the altar of devils. For 〈◊〉 altar is proper for a sacrifice, as a table for a feast or ●past. So that yet I stand to mine old assertion, I cannot find one word or one syllable in the scripture, of ●ny sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last supper, But contrariwise I find in the scripture, that he offered on●y one sacrifice propitiatory, and that but once upon the ●rosse: Heb. 9 & 10.   

Purgatory.  
Where I show out of Tertullian de anima, cap. de recep●u, that the opinion of Purgatory after this life came first from the heathen philosophers as most notable heresies did, seeing all philosophers that granted the immortality of the soul, as Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, assigned three places for the souls departed, Heaven, hell, and a third place of purifying. This argument (saith Bristol) proveth as well, that heaven, hell, & ●he immortality of the soul, had their original of the philosopher's. He is a perilous Logician that can so con●ude. For heaven, hell, and the immortality of the soul, ●re found in the scriptures, which are before all philosophers, but of the third place of purifying, we may say as Augustine doth, contra Pelag. hypognost. lib. 5. Tertium pe●itus ignoramus. The third place we know not at all, neither do we find it in the holy scriptures. But if I would report the truth (Bristol saith) there is no word of any third place of purifying, but that those philosophers, made only two sorts of receptacles. But if I find three and the third a place of purifying, what shall we think of Bristow'S truth? First he granteth supernas mansiones, the high mansions for the souls of the Philosophers and wise men only: secondly Inferos, hell, or the low places, whereof Tertulian saith Reliquas animas ad inferos deijciunt, the rest of the souls they cast down into hell: 3. What say you Bristol, all the souls except Philosopher's souls? Can you not see between them, imprudentes animas, the foolish souls, remaining (according to the stoics) about the earth, which should be instructed of the wise souls. What was this, but a third place, and a place of purifying? But if you would have your purgatory more plainly described, you may resort to Virgil, Aeneid. 6. where Anchises out of the opinion of Pythagoras, rehearseth how the souls of good men are purged: Quin & supremo cum lumine vita reliquit, etc. After this life hath left them (saith he) yet is not all evil, nor all the infections of the body departed from them, and it is necessary that such things as have been long gathered together, should by marvelous means be done away. Therefore they are exercised with pains, and suffer the punishment of their ancient evils: some souls, are hanged up against the void winds, to some their sin remaining, is washed away under great raging waters, or burned up with fire. Every one of us suffer our punishments, and then being but few we are sent into the joyful Elysian fields etc.  
Now concerning the three kinds of Purgatory, which I said that Carpocrates the heretic invented, & proved by the payment of the uttermost farthing, as the papists do theirs: Bristol saith, by this argument, I will win much honesty, because the purgatory that Carpocrates invented, was a wallowing in all sinful operation etc. What is that to mine honesty? I said he invented a kind of purgatory, and Bristol saith it was an absurd kind of purgatory. I said he proved his purgatory as the papists do theirs, but to that Bristol answereth never a word. But this is small honesty, for Bristol, that such things as are joined together by me, to show by what degrees popish purgatory came to perfection, they are severed by him, as though I meant to charge the Papists by such arguments, to confute their purgatory.   

Purgatory fire.  
I said that purgatory fire was taken of the Originists. For Origen brought in the purging fire by better reason out of 1. Cor. 3. for all souls, than the papists do 〈…〉 r some souls: and the name of purgatory fire, began 〈…〉 bout Augustine's time by some Mediators that would 〈…〉 ccorde Origens' error, which was of purging all souls, 〈…〉 i'th' the erroneous practice of praying for the dead, out ●f which, they gathered the purging of some souls. That I say of Origen, although Bristol confess it to 〈…〉 e true in effect, yet he saith I speak it without proof. My proof is in Psal. 36. Ho. 3. Si verò in hac vita contem●imus etc. But if in this life we contemn the words of the divine scripture admonishing us, and will not be healed or reform by the reprehensions thereof, it is certain that fire abideth us which is prepared for sinners, and we shall come unto that fire, in which of what sort every man's work is, the fire shall try. And (as I think) it is of necessity that we must all come unto that fire. Although one be Paul or Peter, yet he cometh to that fire. But they that are such do hear. Although thou pass through fire, the flame ●hal not burn thee. But if any be a sinner like me, he shall ●ome in deed unto that fire as Peter & Paul, but he shall ●ot so pass through it as Peter & Paul. More of his general purgation of all men, and not the damned only, you ●ay read in Num. Hom. 25. Vides quomodo, etc. Thou se●st how every man that departeth out of the battle of this life, hath need of purification, etc. yet saith Bristol, that of the purgation of such as die in gods favour, there is no word, which although he speak of Augustin whose words he citeth Ad quod vult. Hae. 43. yet he saith untruly, for thus he writeth in the same place: Sunt & alia, etc. There be other opinions of this Origen which the Catholic Church doth not receive at all, in which it doth not falsely accuse him, neither can be so excused by his defenders especially: concerning purgation & deliverance: and again after long time the revolution unto the same evils of every reasonable creature. I suppose he that speaketh of the purgation of every reasonable creature, speaketh of the purgation of such as die in God's favour also, wherefore it is manifest, that Origen erred not only about hell & heaven, and the purgation of the damned, but also about the purgation of such as die in God's favour. Therefore Bristol need not gather mine argument, as he doth in scorn. There is no such Purgatory as Origen & Carpocrates would have, therefore there is no purgatory at all. But what should Carpocrates come in this title? but for a sorry sophism, when we speak of Origen only. Wherefore if you will give me leave to frame mine argument (although I meant not an argument out of Origens' purging fire only) it should be thus: There is no such purging fire as Origen would for them that die in God's favour: such as Origens' fire, is the fire that the papists would have: therefore there is no such purging fire as the Papists would have.   

Relieving of the dead by prayer.  
If the dead be not relieved, we say (quod Bristol as S. Paul saith) they must endure a fiery and therefore a most painful purgation. And for this saying, he quoteth most impudently 1. Cor. 3. But I pray you Bristol, where saith S. Paul the dead must endure a fiery purgation, or where maketh he any exception of their relieving? He saith the fire shall try every man's work. Is every man only some kind of dead men? or is every man's work the man himself? or is the trial of every man's work of what sort it is, a purgation either of the man or of the work? Art thou not ashamed to charge S. Paul to say that, whereof he saith nothing at all? even by the judgement of S. Augustine. But that Aerius was not the first that denied prayers for the dead to be profitable, I showed by that of the most ancient writers. The Heracleonits among other their heresies were charged to bury their dead with invocations, and to redeem them with oil, balm and water, and invocations said over their heads, as Augustine and Epiphanius show out of Irenaeus. Now cometh Bristol, and in many needless words, rehearseth other parts of their heresy, with their manner of seasoning or receiving those that believe in them, by a counterfeit marriage and baptism, and by anointing with balm, etc. concluding that this practice of theirs, maketh as much against true baptism & solemnizing of matrimony as against prayer for the dead, anealing, or anointing, etc. Likewise might they conclude, that all their ceremonies are as good as baptism and marriage. But whatsoever we read of the practice of heretics, we must learn to distinguish that which is their own invention, from that which is the ordinance of God. And how shall we know God's ordinance from heretics invention, but by the holy scriptures? Separating therefore baptism and marrying, which are the ordinance of God contained in the scriptures, from the rest that have no ground in the same, prayers for the dead which they used with such like matters, were the invention of heretics. Howbeit (saith Bristol) of prayer for the dead in all this was never a word. No was? How read you Irenaeus lib. Cap. 18. out of which you cite so much & could not see, that after he hath spoken of their seasoning of their disciples alive, he telleth how they redeem them when they are dead: Alij sunt qui mortuis redimunt, etc. Other there be, that redeem the dead at the end of their departing, pouring on their heads oil & water, or the foresaid ointment, with water, and with the foresaid invocations & c? Do you not hear the same prayers said by the heretics for the dead, which they uttered before for the living?  
But if the Heracleonites should fail me, I affirm that Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists, because Tertullian a Montanist uttereth all those points in such books as he made being a Montanist, and especially in his book de anima. That Terrullian uttereth the opinion of the Papists in all points, Bristol will not deny: But he asketh, whether all be Montanisme that Tertullian hath in that his book de anima, and in so many other books as he wrote being a Montanist? No forsooth sir. But Montanus the heretic held whatsoever he wrote in those books. How then shall we discern that which is proper to Montanus, from that which he hath common with the catholic church? I delivered a rule even now, concerning the practice of the Heracleonites. Prayer for the dead and Purgatory are not found in the holy Scriptures, but they are found in a disciple of Montanus, therefore they stink of Montanisme. Add hereunto that in so many books as Tertullian did write being a catholic, there is no mention of prayer for the dead, or suffering after this life of the faithful. Last of all, Tertullian himself telleth you plainly, that Paracletus, the comforter (by which he meant the spirit of Montanus) had revealed very often, that every small offence must be punished after this life, in that the soul of any except martyrs, shall not go immediately into Paradise, but tarry in prison until it have paid the uttermost farthing. What needed he to cite the authority of his Paracletus, if he had spoken nothing but that which was commonly received in the catholic Church? Which saying, sith I have set down in Tertullians' words in the page of Purg. 417. by you quoted, you needed not to have made a question, whether this opinion were Montanisme or no. But when you can say nothing against this assertion yourself, you would make me uncertain of it, and say that it is but a light suspicion of mine, because in one place, before I come to the found proof of it, I say it is a probable conjecture. And doth it follow therefore, that I doubt of it, because I offer a probable conjecture to other men's understanding, before by order of the discourse, I am brought to the manifest probation of it? The other phrases by which you gather a doubtfulness, show your ordinary manner of collections. And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the montanists added prayers for the spirits of them that were dead, etc. Purg. 417. What uncertainty is of that matter, whereof it is not otherwise to be thought? Again: Finally, it appeareth, that the faithful in Tertullians' time allowed no prayers for the dead. Pur. 419. Call you that doubtful which appeareth by plain demonstration before, pag. 417?  
But for all your fine frump in the margin (all in Tertulian is Montanisme that Cyprian doth not mention) it is a probable conjecture, that prayer for the dead, whereof Tertullian speaketh, was used only in the conventicles of montanists, because Cyprian which long after lived in Carthage, in all his works, maketh no mention of prayers for the dead. But I ween Cyprian maketh express mention of prayers for the dead, by my confession, as Bristol would have men think, because I say, of one place alleged by Allen, that it hath some colour for Purgatory, which by flow of arguments I easily wash of, that I need not stick in the lime, as Bristol sayeth I do: but how I am fastened therein, he sayeth never a word.   

Oblations for the dead.  
I said that oblations for the dead, although at the first they were but of thanksgiving, were taken of the Gentiles, as appeareth by Tertullian, who counteth them of one original or beginning with oblations for the birth days, falsely fathering them upon tradition of the Apostles, as he doth other vanities in the same place, whereas those oblations pro natalitijs were taken from the Gentiles, as witnesseth Beatus Rhenanus, a Papist, affirming, that by the Canons of the Nicen council and other counsels which he had seen in librarijs, they were abrogated and taken away. Bristol sayeth, he is but a poor antiquary, which knoweth not, that Natalitia in old time, were as they now are the days of Martyrs sufferings: And yet he can name never an old writer justly, that calleth them natalitia. He nameth in deed Augustine in Psal. 118. Con. 30. Res. Insignita sunt tempora natalitijs martyrum: the times are notably marked with the byrthdayes of Martyrs. What print he followeth I know not, but my book hath natalibus and not natalitijs: between which words there is some difference. As for Martyrologies whether he sendeth us, I know none of such antiquity, that they may be judges in this case.  
Tully is a better witness what natalitia, being a substantive, in old time did signify, namely, the feasts that were kept for the joy of men's birthday in Ant. hody non descendit Antonius. Cur? Dat natalitia in hortis. Antony cometh not down to day. Why so? He keepeth the feast of his birthday in his garden. Wherefore Pamelius, as great an antiquary as you make him, unjustly reproveth Rhenanus, for understanding natalitia in Tertullian, to be feasts of the birthdayes used after the example of the Gentiles. The places you cite out of Cyprian, speak neither of natales nor natalitia, but of celebrating oblations and sacrifices for the commemoration or remembrance of the Martyrs sufferings, which could be none other but sacrifices of thanksgiving, according to your own doctrine. Wherefore you show nothing to the contrary, but that Tertullian using the word natalitia, understandeth it for feasts of the birthday, and not of the death of Martyrs. And beside the authority of Rhenanus and Tully, for the signification of the word natalitia, I oppose against you these reasons. First, that he addeth not the name of Martyrs, as all they that use natalitia or natales for the day of their departure, but sayeth generally, pro natalitijs. Secondly, that he spoke immediately before of oblations pro defunctis, for the dead, which you understand for all faithful departed out of the world: therefore pro natalitijs, signifieth the oblation for the birth of all Christians come into the world. Thirdly, seeing he had before named oblations for the dead, it were absurd to understand pro natalitijs for the dead also, without any more explication. Fourthly, if natalitia should signify the feasts of the death of Martyrs (as you say,) it will follow also, which I do urge of the place, that oblations pro defunctis for the dead, were but oblations of thanksgiving as those for the death of Martyrs, which are contained in one word or phrase. As for that you add out of Origen, in job. lib 3. We celebrate not the day of birth, etc. But the day of death, showeth the custom of the Greek Church, and not of the Latin, and their celebrating of their day of birth with joy and thanksgiving, as the day of the beginning of felicity, and end of all sorrows unto the dead, clean overthroweth your opinion of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, as in his time, not yet entered into the Greek Church. Beside that, he speaketh of the death of all men, and not of Martyrs only, as you violently would wrest him.   

Beeres to carry home the corpses.  
He maketh a foolish quarrel upon my saying, that George of Alexandria invented beeres for lucre's sake, as the Papists their bearing clothes, and other toys, for funeral pomp. And first he sayeth, that George did not invent beeres. For Epiphanius sayeth, he devised to make the number of them certain, and without those that he ordained, no corpse to be buried, and all for lucre's sake. Ep. H. 76. I never thought, that they carried dead men on their necks like beasts to the grave before George's days, and therefore they had some kind of comely carriage for them. But I said truly, that George invented peculiar beeres, for lucre's sake, as the Papists use their bearing clothes and like stuff. Secondly he sayeth, I commend such ceremonies as are convenient for laying up of the corpse. I do so: But superstitious beereclothes, and other ceremonies of popery, so dearly paid for, are neither needful nor convenient.  
Again he asketh, whether I think it much, that the Church should reap their carnalia, to whom she soweth spiritualia? No verily: but I could never learn out of the scriptures, that bearing clothes, crosses, candles, torches, etc. were such spiritualia, as the ministers of the Church ought to sow. Last of all, where he asketh, whether I would provide a beer and bearing clothes against I be buried, rather than to pay my duties to my parish Church, he declareth, that he doth wilfully mistake my saying of beeres and bearing clothes, as though I denied any thing that is comely, when I speak against superstition and covetousness.  
The second part concerning the errors that he laid (cap. 4.) to the fathers and not to us. 1. Touching the heresies that 
Bristol.  were in their times.  
He demandeth what a thing it is that I charge the Church in the Apostles time with heresies, that were in 
Fulke.  the Apostles times, and the same Church in three Arrian Emperors times, with the heresy of Arrius? I answer that I never charged either the Apostles, or the faithful members of the Church, or the true Church itself, with any heresies that were in their times. But answering the demand Ar. 15. what Church it was that hath always stood still and steadfast, while all congregations of heretics have decayed: I say, The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast and inseparable from Christ her head, when all heretics have been and shall be confounded, although she have not always flourished in worldly peace. For until the time of Constantine the great, the Church had small rest: And soon after under the emperors Constantius, Constano, and Valens, it was greatly infected with the heresy of Arrius.  
Where Bristol falsifieth my words, reporting that I say, The true Church was infected etc. the name of the Church is oftentimes generally taken for the whole number of them that profess Christianity, as when I say, the Church was persecuted by the heathen Emperors, I mean all that would profess Christianity, among which were many heretics that suffered persecution also. Likewise when I say, the Church was infected, I mean the visible Church, in which are always many hypocrites, according to the parable of the net and of the tars, etc. yea I doubt not but many of GOD'S elect, were infected with that heresy in those times, which afterward repent and returned to the knowledge of the truth: wherefore my meaning was nothing less, then to charge the true Church of Orthodoxy and true profession with the heresy of Arrius, or any other which it did openly detest and abhor.  
another quarrel he hath against me, where I said, Ar. 35. That the true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles times. In which place, after I had showed what corruption of doctrine had been received of that greatest lights and pillars of the Church, from which it was not like, that most of the inferior members could be free: I conclude according to the demand (which was to declare by good history or reasonable likelihood, when the true church did decay?) that it decayed immediately after the Apostles times, meaning as the demand serveth also, to understand the word of decaying, when it began to decay, & not as Bristol cavilleth, when it was utterly decayed & came to nothing, for such decaying I utterly deny, that ever it was, or ever shallbe. If we see some principal posts of an house, begin to putrefy, may we not say, this building doth decay? Or being asked when it decayed, after it is come to a more ruinous state, and yet standeth, may we not answer, it decayed first, when such a beam or post began to put rifie? I doubt not but every man of reasonable understanding, will acknowledge how foolish these cavils are, which are taken of ambiguity of words, and misconstruing of phrases clean contrary to my meaning, expressed in plain evident terms, and hundredth times at least, in these my books, namely that the Church, although it be persecuted by tyrants, assaulted by heretics, undermined by hypocrites, envy and maligned by the devil himself, yet the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, to root it out of the world, or to hinder the salvation of any one true member thereof.  
Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, & S. justinus. 
Bristol.   
If these doctors have erred (saith Bristol) in any thing, yet this thing is notable, that not so much as in any one 
Fulke.  of their errors, they are of your side. A notable matter in deed, that we hold not so much as any one error, which they did hold. But you will not say the contrary, for shame, but that we hold many truths which they held. We resist (you say) their full & whole consent. That is utterly false, you have not their full & whole consent, for any point of popery: prayer for the dead is the oldest error you have, except the superstition of Angels and the pharisaical doctrine of justification. Show me the full & whole consent of all the fathers for it, whose writings are extant, show me justinus, Irenaeus, Origenes, Cyprianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, or any within 200. years after Christ (except Tertullian a Montanist) that in his writings maintaineth prayer for the dead.  
But you will tell us, whereto you papists ascribe infallible truth: First to the canonical scriptures & tradition of the Apostles, to the decrees of Peter & his chair, to the whole church, to the consent of fathers & counsels, both general and provincial, confirmed by Peter's successor. We know this well enough, but I do rehearse it in your own terms, that it may appear you are not ashamed to match diverse authorities equal in truth infallible, with the holy scriptures inspired of God, that alone are able to instruct a man to salvation, and prepare him to every good work. For these authorities, you urge not only where they agree with the scriptures, but also where you blasphemously suppose the scriptures to be unperfect, as that they have omitted any thing needful to salvation, or the advancement of God's glory in true religion.  
The errors of the fathers, we do not reveal to their dishonour, but to the honour of God. Let God only be true & every man a liar, yea Peter & Peter's successor a thousand times. Whereas you take upon you, to mitigate the errors of the fathers, named in the title, you labour in 〈…〉 e: we know they erred not of malice, but being de〈…〉 ved with similitude of truth. But where you say, it 〈…〉 s no great matter for Irenaeus, Papius, and other to 〈…〉 we erred in the opinion of the Chiliasts, until the Church had condemned peradventure that opinion in the heretics called Mellenaries: you show what certainty of truth you have out of the scriptures, & yet you make it but a peradventure, that the Church hath condemned that error. Last of all, where you say in excuse of the error of justinus, concerning angels, that express mention is made Gen. 6. of the sin of the Angels, calling the translation of the septuaginta authentical, which translateth the Angels of God instead of the sons of God, you give great cause of suspicion that you are not clear of that error yourself.  
3 Touching 2. marriages, and S. Hierom. 
Bristol.   
Where I say Act. 35. it seemeth that the Church in the 
Fulke.  〈…〉 me of justinus, was in some error about second marriage's and divorcement: Bristol is angry, that I have no more to say: but it seemeth as though he would have me charge the man or the time with more than I can manifestly prove. But seeing I quote no place for it, he dare say I have it not in the works of justinus himself, and counsels me not to trust the Magdeburgian Centuries. As for the Centuries I dare say, I never red five leaves of them together, or in parts. But I dare show to any man that doubteth of my reading of the most ancient writers, my book of notes written with mine own hand, more than 15. years past.  
The place of justinus out of which such a matter seemeth is Apologia secunda ad Antoninum Pium, etc. where he hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As they that by man's law enter into second marriages, are sinners by our masters judgement. I know the words are otherwise interpreted by some, and the sin not referred to second marriages, but to wanton beholding of women: And therefore I do not precisely charge justinus. And yet again I say it seemeth, that the Church in his time was in some error, because Athenagoras a Christian philosopher, that lived in a manner in the same time, doth expressly call the second marriage speciosum adulterium, a fair kind of adultery. Qui namque repudiaverit, inquit etc. For he that shall forsake his wife (saith Christ) and marry another, doth commit adultery: suffering a man neither by divorcement to put her away, whose flower of virginity he hath defiled, nor to go unto second marriages. For he that depriveth himself of his former wife (although after she is dead a divorcement is made) is a secret and covered adulterer, transgressing the hand that is the creature or workmanship of God. Because in the beginning he made one man and one woman, and dissolving flesh from flesh, the union of commixtion instituted for the participation of kind and sex, etc. And this seemeth to be the common error of his time, because he writeth this in that Apology, which he made in defence of all Christians, which it is not like he would present to the Emperor, in the name of them all, except he had written that, which was the common received opinion of the Christians doctrine in his time.  
Concerning Hieronyme, Bristol is angry also that I say he was almost fallen into Tertullians' error, when it is manifest he was fain to purge himself, not only against malicious enviers, but also towards Godly Bishops, and Christians. Apol. ad Pammachium.  
Where as I lay unto Hierom, two other perilous Assertions, whereof the one tendeth to destroy the humanity of Christ, the other to give divinity to the martyrs, where he saith, The souls of the martyrs, follow the Lamb whether so ever he goeth: and thereof concludeth, If the Lamb be every where, those also that are with the Lamb, must be believed to be every where.  
Bristol answereth, that the saints are not every ●here in personal presence. How then? But of such power 〈…〉 ey be, that they hear their suitors in all places at once, and 〈…〉 n be personally present to heal & help whom they will. Even 〈…〉 s the lamb that is Christ according to his humanity hea〈…〉eth suitors in all places, and in personal presence assi 〈…〉ed Saint Stephen, and whomsoever else he will: I say according also to his humanity etc. But what say you according to his humanity, is he every where? that is the question, and not of his power in hearing suitors, or helping them. If you will defend the ubiquity of Christ according to his humanity, speak plainly, and join with Hieronyme if you dare. If you interpret every where for all power, how can you give all power to the souls of Martyrs, which they ascribe only to GOD and the Lamb? Apoc. 7. And whereas you attribute unto the souls of Saints, such power, that they hear the suitors in all places at once &c: Let the reader see how much you ascribe to Christ, that make the suit of every saint equal with him in infinite power of hearing, understanding and helping. For to hear understand and help all suitors at once, is a divine privilege not communicable to any creature, that is not God. The argument therefore of invocation of saints, which you account to be so strong, without horrible blasphemy, against the divine nature, can never be defended. The Saints follow the Lamb, not to be of divine nature, or equal power with him, but to be partakers of his glory, according to his grace, and the measure and capacity of nature created.  
Touching praying to the Son, and to the holy 
Bristol.  Ghost.  
Being urged by the Popish Articles to show the 
Fulke.  error of the Church in any thing, I show Pag. 89. of that answer, That the Council of Carthage the 3. cap. 23. confirmed by a general council, which is with the Papists the Church representative, decreed, that the prayers at the altar should be directed always to the father, which is no small error, seeing that hereof it followeth, that none ought to be directed either to the son or to the holy Ghost, or to the blessed Trinity. What moved those fathers thus to decree, I know not: but certain it is, the decree is erroneous and offensive. Bristol cavilleth at my collections, as unnecessary, that no prayers may be directed but to the father, whereas my words have relation to such prayers as the council speaketh off. Also that the very prayers at the altar, may not be directed to the Son or to the holy Ghost, because for order's sake, they are appointed to be directed to the father: I say, saving the authority of the council, which appointeth them to be directed to the father always, they may not, otherwise I doubt not but they may. And therefore Bristol laboureth in vain, to prove out of Fulgentius Ad Monimum, & Petrum diaconum, that the prayers, although they be directed to the father, yet are made to the holy Trinity, especially because of the conclusion, which hath in it the name of the son and the holy Ghost. And whereas he sendeth me to the Canon of his Mass for proof of the same, I must put him in remembrance, that in Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, O lamb of GOD which takest away the sins of the world &c: which is also said in his Mass, both the prayers is directed to God the son, & yet no conclusion there is, naming the father and the holy Ghost. Let Bristol therefore choose, whether he will defend the error of the council of Carthage, or else acknowledge that the romish Church doth err, in directing the prayer at the altar to the Son, without any conclusion including the father and the holy Ghost.  
5 Of minisiring the blessed Sacraments to infants. 
Bristol.   
I charge all the Churches in S. Augustine's time & In●ocentius 
Fulke.  himself Bishop of Rome, with this error, 〈…〉 at they did not only minister the communion to in 〈…〉 ntes, contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, Let a man examine himself &c: but also, that they thought it ne 〈…〉 ssarie for them in pain of damnation, to receive the communion, which error I supposed the papists them values would not defend. Hear first Bristol accu●eth my boldness, in that I affirm the Papists will not defend this error: and secondly my wilful ignorance, ●hat I never red the council of Trent, wherein it is declared that they do defend it, with an admonition to his country men what blind guides they have of me and such as I am etc. Concerning the boldness, I desire ●ardon of the Papists, if I thought not so evil of thē●s they deserve: And touching my wilful ignorance ●nd blindness, I must needs use the proverb; Who ●s so bold as blind baiard? Bristol, which so constantly affirmeth, that it was not possible for him to ●nowe: Fulke never red the council of Trent, and that i●●tterly false, for as I know I have red it, so suppose 〈◊〉 have red it before Bristol. But admit I had ne●er seen, the report of that 5. session under Pius the 4. which was held the 16. day of july 1562, are all blind guides that never saw that session? O weighty censure of a proud papist, which by a fault called of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thinketh that to be the highest point of learning, which he hath learned latest! But what if the council of Trent do not only acknowledge it to be an error, but also do anathematise all them that hold the contrary? Then have I not slandered the Papists, but Bristol hath slandered me. The very words cited by Bristol out of the 4. Cap. show that the Papists held it for an error, that it is necessary for infants to receive the communion: That infants lacking the use of reason, are by no necessity bound to the sacramental receiving of the Eucharist. Also the fourth Canon of the same session, thundereth out anathema, against them, that say otherwise. Si quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem, Anathema sit: If any man shall say, that the communion of the Eucharist, is necessary for infants, before they come to the years of discretion, let him be accursed. But the same council in the Chapter by Bristol cited, affirmeth, that Antiquity is not to be condemned, if it practised that manner, sometime, in some places, and that without controversy it must be believed, that they did it not, for any necessity of salvation. And this declaration (saith Bristol) may suffice not only all Catholics, to whom it is the declaration of the holy Ghost himself, but also any other reasonable man. Indeed if any reasonable man, will be satisfied with such a gross ledging of the whole matter in controversy, it is a good satisfaction. The council of Trent saith so, therefore although Augustine, Pope Innocentius, & other witnesses of antiquity say the contrary, of themselves, yet we must not believe them. That Kemnitius a Lutheran toucheth not this error of the council of Trent, it is a great argument, & such as Bristol often useth, that it is no error. Kemnitius if he had been as quick eyed as Bernard, yet saw not all things, neither was he bound to confute all errors that he saw. But for further satisfaction of all men, Bristol will open the case particularly, which is this in effect: The Pelagians affirmed, that children without baptism, should have everlasting life, although not in the kingdom of God. Whereunto the Catholics replied, they could not have eternal life, except they did eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood in the communion: but the communion they could not receive, before they were baptized, therefore without baptism, they could not have eternal life. Now Bristol putting the case, that a child were baptized, and then immediately died before he received sacramentally the Eucharist, demandeth, whether the father granting to such a child by force of baptism remission of sins, do not also allow him eternal life and the kingdom of God. And let any man (saith he) bring me one place of those Doctors speaking to this case & holding the contrary. I answer, seeing they used immediately after baptism, to communicate the infant, the case that Bristol ●utteth, is too rare, to happen in 500 years that any question might grow upon it. But what their opinion was, ●f the necessity of the one sacrament, as much as the o●her, it is easy to prove both by their argument, which Bristol confesseth they used, & also by their own words, whatsoever the blind guides of the Tridentine council ●ay in their defence. They brought in the Eucharist (saith Bristol) only to prove that baptism is necessary to the everlasting life of children. Very well: but what force ●n the world hath that argument of the eucharist, for the necessity of baptism, if the Eucharist also be not necessary for children? For the Pelagians might reply, that if the eucharist be not necessary, no more is baptism for the attaining of eternal life. But those fathers laboured to prove the necessity of baptism for infants, by the necessity of the eucharist for infants: And this appeareth by many places of S. Augustine. As count jul. ●ib. 1. cap. 2. Where he speaketh of Innocentius Bishosh of Rome, Qui parvulos etc. which hath defined that infants except, they eat the flesh of the son of man can have no life at all in them. And there he meaneth of eating sacramentally: as his own words cited by Augustine declare, Cont. duas Epist. Pelag lib. 2. cap. 4. speaking of the rescript of Innocentius to the Bishops of Numidia: Nónne apertissimè de parvulis loquitur? Haec enim ejus verba sunt etc. Doth he not most manifestly speak of infants? For these are his own words: Illud verò quòd eos vestra fraternitas asserit, praedicare etc. But concerning that your brotherhood affirmeth them to preach, that infants, may be rewarded with the rewards of eternal life, even without the grace of baptism, it is a very foolish thing. For except they shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, they shall have no life in themselves. But they which defend them to have this life without regeneration, seem to me that they would make frustrate baptism itself, when they preach them to have that which we believe is not to be conferred upon them but by baptism etc. And within few lines after Augustine saith: Ecce beatae memoriae etc. Behold Pope Innocentius of blessed memory saith: that infants have not life, without the baptism of Christ and without participation of the body and blood of Christ. Again, lib. 1. Cap. 2. he speaketh against the Pelagians, which granted that baptism was necessary for infants, to attain to the kingdom of heaven, but not for remission of sins. Nec illud cogitatis etc. Neither do you consider this, that they cannot have life, which are expertes without part of the body and blood of Christ, seeing he saith himself: Except you shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you.  
Again, Contra Pelagianos Hypognost lib. 5. Si enim intelligeretis, crederetis quare dixerit Dominus: Non opus est san● medicus etc. If you did understand, you would believe wherefore our Lord said, The whole need not the Physician, but they that are sick: you would believe truly, that they are not whole, but wounded, which are offered to be healed to our saviour the Physician, at the station of Baptism: and that they should not have life, except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of him which is life. For he himself hath said, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have eternal life in you, and he which eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. How therefore do you promise the life of the kingdom of heaven to infants, not borne again of water and the holy Ghost, Non cibatis carne atque non potatis, not fed with the flesh of Christ and which have not drunk the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of sins? For it is his decree: If any man be not borne again of water and of the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. For to enter into the kingdom of heaven is none other thing, but to live in a blessed life which remaineth for ever and ever. Behold he which is not baptized and he also which is deprived of the vital meat and cup, is divided from the kingdom of heaven etc. To the like effect he writeth, Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bon. lib. 4. cap. 4. Si omnibus etc. If reconciliation by Christ be necessary, for all men, sin hath passed over all men, by which we were enemies, that we have need of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the laver of regeneration, and in the body and blood of Christ, without the which, no not infants can have life in themselves.  
Also Contra julian, lib. 3. cap. 11. deriding his piety, that infants should be damned for not doing that which they could not do, he addeth, Vbi etiam ponis etc. where also wilt thou place them, because they shall lack life, seeing they have not eaten the flesh of the Son of man, nor drunk his blood?  
Also de peccatorum meritis & remissione lib. 1. cap. 20. a place cited by Bristol but mingled with many intersections of his own, as his manner is. After Augustine hath rehearsed the text, joan. 6. Except ye eat &c: he addeth Quid ultrà querimus? etc. What seek we further? What can they answer to this, except stubbornness do stretch their striving sinews against the constancy of the manifest truth? Or dare any man say this also, that this sentence pertaineth not to infants, and that they may without the participation of this body and blood, have life in them & c? Likewise cap. 24. he saith, Optimè Punici etc. Best of all, the Christians of Africa, do call baptism itself nothing else but health, and the sacrament of the body of Christ, nothing else but life: Whence, but of an ancient (as I think) and apostolic tradition by which they hold it engrafted unto the Church of Christ, that without baptism and participation of the lords table, no man at all can come, not only, not to the kingdom of God, but neither to health & life everlasting? For this also the scripture testifieth according to those things which we have said before. For what other thing do they hold, which call baptism by the name of health, but that which is said, he hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, and that which Peter saith, so also doth baptism in like manner save you? What other thing also do they hold which call the sacrament of our lords table, life, but that which is said, I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world: And except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you? If therefore as so many and so great testimonies of GOD do consent, that neither health nor life eternal without baptism, and the body and blood of our Lord is to be hoped to any body, in vain without these is it promised to Infants. Furthermore, if from health and life eternal, nothing but sins do separate, by these sacraments, nothing but the guilt of sin is loosed in infants.  
These places of Augustine I have rehearsed the more at large, that the impudency of the council of Trent and of their poor patron Bristol, might appear, which would excuse the error of the ancient Church, and of the Bishop of Rome in those times, in saying that albeit they used to minister the communion to infants, yet they did it not for any necessity to salvation: whereas the contrary by so many places, and more than I have rehearsed, doth most manifestly appear.  
As for the practice which he confesseth of giving that sacrament to infants, he saith is not against Probet seipsum, etc. Let a man examine himself, etc. Because that infants may examine themselves by others, (which is a monstrous kind of speech) as well as believe and repent by others. Here is one error of Augustine defended by an other of his: for infants are not baptised for the faith of other men, but because they are comprehended within the covenant of GOD, to whom baptism is no more to be denied, than circumcision was to the infants of the jews. The Prophet sayeth, justus etc. The righteous man shall live by his own faith.  
It is not the faith of other men that can procure life unto us. Neither is faith required of infants, before they can hear the word of God, which is the only ordinary means by which faith cometh. But infants (sayeth Bristol) be in no mortal sins, being newly baptised, and therefore they need no examination for fear lest they should come unworthily. Saint Augustine confesseth that he was in mortal sin, even in his infancy: Imbecillitas membrorum infantium innocens est, non animus infantium: The weakness of the members of infants is innocent, not the mind of infants. afterward he bringeth examples of envy even in an infant, and at last concludeth: Quod si, etc. And if it be so that I was conceived in iniquity, and that in sins my mother in her womb nourished me; where I beseech thee my GOD, when LORD was I thy servant, where or when was I innocent? By this you see, there is no short time of man's life free from sin. Neither may you cavil, that Augustine was not baptized in his infancy, seeing he speaketh generally of the condition of all infants, which is not changed by baptism, although sin be not imputed unto them.  
Wherefore to speak after your Popish supposition of Baptism, that by the work wrought all sin committed before baptism, is abolished in baptism; what if the infant not knowing the mystery of baptism, be angry with them that have taken him out of his warm clothes and plunged him in baptism? is this no sin? But what infant can examine himself of this sin? And what can the examination of other men profit him whom the holy Ghost will have to examine himself? As for the distinction of Votum explicitum & implicitum, he sendeth us to Allens book de Euch. lib. 1. Cap. 31. etc.  
For how can we be assured, that children have a close desire to baptism more than to the communion? Or how can it be proved, That they have any desire explicit or implicit to either of both the sacraments? If 〈◊〉 be lawful to imagine of infants, against all reason, and without all scriptures, we may fill books with distinctions and devices innumerable. Last of all, he chargeth me, with falsification by adding, because the council of Trent saith, that manner was aliquando in quibusdam locis, some times and in some places. But I pray thee Bristol, what have I falsified? the council of Trent, which thou affirmest that I did never read? Thou sayest they that did communicate infants, were not so many, as Fulke doth make them. Why, how many do I make them? I said that the Pope of Rome and all they that took his part in S. Augustine's time, were in this error, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, was to be ministered to infants. And have I not plainly, and now also plentifully proved it out of Saint Augustine? where is then this falsification? If I had not proved that which I said, yet there is difference betwixt falsification, and a false affirmation. And because the Tridentine council saith, it was Aliquando as though that error had not long continued, it is manifest that it began to be ministered to infants before Cyprians time, and continued five or six hundredth years after. Witness Beatus Rhenanus in Tertulli. de Coron. mil. where he showeth that this manner was continued until the times of Ludovicus Pius, and Lotharius and after: citing these words out of the books of ceremonies called Agendae of infants newly baptized. Si Episcopus etc. If the Bishop be present, it must be immediately confirmed and then communicated. If the Bishop be not present, before the infant do suck or taste any thing, let the Priest give him the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST, yea before the Mass, if necessity require. By this Testimony it appeareth not only that this custom was long observed, but also that it was joined with opinion of necessity, so that mass should not be tarried for, if the infant were in any danger.  
Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later times, and not of old, and 1. touching the bodies of Angels. 
Bristol.   
According to the demand of the challenger, 
Fulke.  which requireth any one error or false interpretations of the scripture made by the Popish Church, to be showed him, I bring certain examples of diverse kinds of errors, which are not the matters in controversy between us, but such as if the Papists be not impudent, they themselves will acknowledge to be errors. Now cometh Bristol in this his bald and confused reply, and as though I were able to note none errors of the Popish Church, but those which I note upon such occasion, willeth all them that would know the true Church, to consider that these errors (if they be any) are so few and so light, that they may be a sure confirmation to Papists, and a just motive to all other to embrace the Church of this time, no less then of old time, considering it is no less, but much more unreprovable of the adversary. Nevertheless as few and as light as these errors seem, they are sufficient if they were but one, to prove that which I intent: namely that the Popish Church hath erred, which being proved the surest pillar of Popery is broken, and all the rest of their opinions which they hold against the scriptures, & the true Church of God, when it is showed that the popish Church hath erred, will show themselves to be errors, which had nothing else to gain them credit, but this one false principle That the Popish Church can not err.  
And touching the bodies of Angels, where I say, Ar. 60. the second council of Nice determined that Angels and souls of men had bodies, were visible and circumscriptible, and therefore must be painted, affirming this to be the judgement of the Catholic Church: Bristol answereth, that I misreport the matter, for it is not the councils determination, nor saying, but the saying only of joannes Bishop of Thessalonica, rehearsed in the council, with an admonition given by Tharasius B. of Const against the madness of them that overthrew the images of our Lord & his undefiled mother, seeing this holy father doth show, that Angels also may be painted. But the truth is (as may appear to every man that will read the Council, act. 5) that this is a vain gloss of Bristol to elude the matter. After the saying of joannes is rehearsed, in which this gross error is contained, Tharasius the archb. of Const. thereupon concludeth: Ostendit autem pater, quòd & angelos pingore oporteat quando circumscribi possunt, & ut homines apparuerunt. This father showeth, that we ought to paint the angels also, seeing they may be circumscribed, & have appeared as men: by which it is manifest, that Tharasius approveth the opinion of joannes. Would you now have the determination of the Council? It followeth immediately, Sacra synodus dixit etiam domine: The holy synod said yea forsooth my lord. By this it is manifest, that not I, but Bristol hath misreported the matter. Where I said (If this be not to induce an error to make men believe that angels and spirits have bodies visible and circumscriptible, there was never any error since the world began:) Bristol pulleth me back and saith, Soft man, other manner of errors have been defended since the world began. I wots well, & greater, but if any of them be a manifest error, this is as manifest as any of them all. Yet is Bristol so zealous in excusing this error, that he shameth not with that ignorant bishop of Thessalonica to slander many of the most catholic and ancient fathers with it, Basilius. Athanasius, Methodius, yea, Augustine (he sayeth) make a question of it. In which point he showeth great ignorance or wilful malice. For whatsoever is found in any of those ancient writers, sounding to such a purpose, it only by mistaking the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or corpus, which they used generally, for that which now in the schools (according to Aristotle) is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substantia, substance comprehending both bodies and spirits, not that ever they thought that angels, spirits & souls of men had visible and circumscriptible bodies, such as may be set forth by painting, or such as the bodies of men & beasts are, or that they consisted either of airy of fiery matter, as that blind Bishop so imagined out of that verse of the Psalm. 104. He maketh his Angel's spirits, and his ministers a burning fire. Last of all he sayeth there is no determination of the Church to condemn the assertion as heretical, though there be sufficient to count it temerarious & erroneous: whither it be heretical, I will not now dispute, seeing by Bristol it is granted to be an error, & I have sufficiently proved, that it was maintained by the whole Council, which was as much as I required for that point.  
2 Touching the Pope's superiority over the Council.  
The determinations of the Pope and of the general 
Bristol. Fulke.  Council, being accounted among the Papists, as the rules of truth, I said are 63. and 85. for so much as it is not agreed of among them, which of them is superior to other, the Pope over the Council, or the Council over the Pope, & that one of these hath controlled the other there can be no certainty of truth in either of them. To this Bristol answereth, that he thinketh himself able to satisfy me or any other reasonable man, if he saith, that then we are in a right belief, when we hold those determinations that are the determinations jointly both of the Pope & of the Council, as those of Trent. But he is greatly deceived, for while it is in doubt, whether may err, & each part chargeth other with erring, it may be, & there is none other likelihood to the contrary but that they do both err, so that neither I, nor any other reasonable man may safely tie our faith to any of their determinations. For they whereof either part may ere, being severed, may also err, but when they are joined together, you will say the Counsels determination is uncertain, except it be confirmed by the Pope. But if the Pope also may err, how is it made certain by his confirmation? Another will say, the Pope's determination is uncertain, except the general council give consent & approbation thereto. But if the general council may ere, what certainty is in the approbation thereof? So the doubt is as great as it was before, where Brist. affirmeth that no man will bind us to believe the determinations of any Council that are not certainly confirmed by the Pope: he sayeth more than he is able to warrant: for beside that D. Cole in his answer to the Bishop of Sarum manifestly defendeth the authority of the counsels against the Pope, many popish divines were and are of that opinion, that the Pope may err, and is under the authority of the council.  
But where I show a manifest error in the popish church by the interchangeable condemning and approving one of another, of the Pope and the council: Bristol sayeth, the matter is not so uncertain amongst them, as I make it. For first he granteth, that the council of Ferrara and Florence, determined that the Pope was above the council, and that the council might err, and that Pope Eugenius 4. was of the same judgement. He granteth also that the counsels of Constance and Basil determined the contradictory, namely that the council was above the Pope, and that the Pope may err. But where I said, that Martinus quintus, chosen Pope by the council of Constance, was of the same judgement, there he crieth, ho, you prove not that, nor never shall prove. No shall, Master Bristol? why sir, is it like, that the council which had deposed three Popes, would choose a fourth man Pope, that was of a contrary judgement unto them? Yea, how could he accept the Papacy, being not void, if the council had not authority to depose the Pope, whosoever he was of the three, that was the right Pope. But seeing john the 23. was of the Emperor and the council accounted the right Pope, who also before his deposition, affirmed that the council of Constance was a most holy council and could not err: it is manifest, that this Martin being a Cardinal, consented to the deposition of john the 23. session. 12. therefore he was of the same judgement that the council was. But if you would say, that as soon as he was made Pope, the spirit of Peter coming upon him, he was suddenly changed into a contrary judgement: his Epistle written to the inquisitors is plainly against you, where you say, that at the petition of the Polonian Ambassador, he confirmed 〈…〉 ose determinations alone of the council of Constance which were 〈…〉ainst the errors of Wickeliefe, Hus, and Hierom of prague. 〈…〉 or he did so generally confirm all decrees of that 〈…〉 uncell, that he commanded it to be inquired of persons suspected, in articles as followeth: Item utrum credat, teneat & asserat, quòd quodlibet concilium generale, & 〈…〉 am Constantiense universalem Ecclesiam repraesentet. Item, whether he believe, hold and affirm, that every general council, and namely the council of Constance doth represent the universal church. If Martin the 5. would have every man to believe that the council of Constance representeth the universal church, he would also have them believe that the council of Constance cannot err, which council condemned the Pope of heresy, and deposed him of his papacy. Again, another Article: Item utrum credat quòd illud quod sacrum concilium Constantiense universalem Ecclesiam repraesentans, 〈…〉 probavit & approbat, in favour 'em fidei & ad salutem anima 〈…〉 m quod hoc est ab universis Christi fidelibus approbandum & 〈…〉 endum. Et quid condemnavit & condemnat, esse fidei vel 〈…〉 nis moribus contrarium, hoc ab iisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato, credendum & asserendum. Also, whether he believeth, that that which the holy council of Constance, representing the universal Church, hath approved and doth approve in favour of the faith, to the health of men's souls, that the same is of all faithful Christians to be approved and holden. And that which it hath condemned and doth condemn, to be contrary to faith or good manners, that the same is of them to be holden believed and affirmed as a thing condemned. But the council of Constance approved this assertion, that the council cannot err, and that the council is above the Pope to condemn him of error, which is a matter greatly pertaining to the faith, & the health of men's souls, therefore Pope Martin the 5. was of the judgement of the council of Constance. Finally in the end of the council of Constance the approbation of Pope Martin is recorded of all things decreed ●nd determined in matters of faith: Among which we must needs account this question of the Pope's erring, and the counsels not erring, which is accounted so necessary an article of faith, that the Papists strive for nothing so much at this day, as for that which was there condemned by the Council. Quibus sic factis sanctissimus dominus noster Papa respondendo ad praedicta, quòd omnia & singula, determinata, conclusa & decreta in materiis fidci per praesent concilium conciliariter tenere & inviolabiliter seru●● volebat, & nunquam contrair quoquo modo. Ipsáque sic conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter nec alio modo. Const. Sess. 45. which things being so done, our mo●te holy lord the Pope said, answering to the foresaid things, that he would hold and keep inviolable all and singular things, determined, concluded, and decreed in matters of faith, by the present Council in form of Council: and that he would never go against them by any means. And the same things so done in form of Council, he approveth and ratifyeth, and not otherwise nor after any other manner. Now it is certain that nothing was done or decreed more Councellike, than that solemn canon, That the Council is above the Pope, and hath authority to depose the Pope, which Pope john 23. confirmed and confessed, that the Council could not err, etc. And therefore it is utterly false, that Pope Martin confirmed those determinations alone, which were against the errors of Wicliff. Hus, & Hieronym, at the petition of the Polonian Am● assadour, as Bristol saith. For the request was made unto the Pope, not by one Ambassador, but by diverse, and them not from the king of Polonia only, but also from the duke of Lituania, that a certain book of one friar john Falkenberge, containing notable heresies (as they said) & condemned by the deputies of the Council, etc. might be condemned in an open session of the Council, & so pronounced before the Council were dissolved: otherwise they protested in that name of their princes, that they sustained grievance, & would appeal unto the next Council, unto whom the Pope answered as before generally, that whatsoever was decreed by the Council in form of a Council, concerning matter of faith, he did 〈…〉 own and would observe, and according to a decree of 〈…〉 e same council, calleth another council to follow a ●apia etc. showing therein not only his judgement, but also his obedience to the decree of the Council. Concer●ing Nicolaus 5. (Bristol saith) he did but only ratify ●●e collations of benefices and such like things done in ●●e Council of Basil. Hereunto I answer the words ●re so general in that Bull of approbation of things coacted and done in the council of Basil by Pope Nico●as, as they may contain all manner of decrees of the same Council. Omnia & singula tam justitiam etc. all & every thing concerning as well justice as grace, in persons or places, which in time of the grants and other the premises obeyed our foresaid reverend and well-beloved brother Amadeus Cardinal, Bishop, Legat, and Vicar aforesaid, then called Felix the fift and the congregated aforesaid or either of them, as well by the Council of Basil which then was, and Amadeus in his obedience called Felix the fift, as also them which in the cities of Basil and Lausanna, remained congregated under the name of a general council; or any other or others by his or either of their authority yea legates the latere, delegates or any other whomsoever, from than or either of them, having power jointly or severally,) how soever done, performed, granted, given, indulted, disposed & ordained, although they be greater & weightier matters, or of any other nature whatsoever from the premises, & such as require to be specially expressed, which we will & decree to be accounted as if they were specially expressed with all things thereof following And also all & every thing done by the ordinaries in the same places, for the benefit of peace & unity of the church of our own motion, of our certain knowledge & of the fullness of the apostolic power, by the council & assent of our reverend brethren the Cardinals of the holy church of R. by tenor of these present; we approve ratify & also confirm, & will have to be taken for ratified & confirmed. Here you see all & every thing done & ordained in the Council of Basil whatsoever they be, expressed, or not expressed, confirmed and ratified by the Bull of Pope Nicholas the 5. And in the Council of Basil, the council of Constance, and especially that decree of the superiority of the council above the Pope, was decreed, & pope Eugenius, for his contumacy was deposed and another elected, all whose acts also pope Nicolas confirmeth and ratifieth.  
Likewise where as Bristol saith that Pope Eugenius ●he 4. did no more but declare that the council of Basil from the beginning to a certain time was a lawful council and lawfully continuated: The truth is, he did both by his own Bulls and by his own deputies a great deal more than Bristol confesseth: and even by this that he confesseth, it is easy to prove that Eugenius granted the council to be above the pope. For Eugenius had done what he could to dissolve the council of Basil, and sent out three bulls for the same purpose, notwithstanding the council was continued by authority of the council against his decrees: wherefore seeing he declared, (as Bristol confesseth) that the council was lawfully continued, contrary to his decrees (which he was compelled to revoke) he declared that the council was above the pope, and had authority to control him and his decrees. And that he did more than Bristol saith he did: It is manifest in the record of the council, session 16. That Eugenius declared the council of basil to be lawful and lawfully continued until Anno dom. 1433. 18. Cal. jan. revoking three bulls by which he had taken upon him before to dissolve the same council, in which bulls he complained that the council usurped authority above the pope. afterward sess. 17. Anno. 1434. 24. of April. being Saturday, the Pope's legates were incorporated into the council of Basil, being sworn to defend the council, and by special words, the decree of the council of Constance Sessi. 4. by which the council is decreed to be above the Pope, and the Pope bound to obey the council and the decrees thereof. And 6. Cal. Maij. The precedents of pope Eugenius were admitted with these conditions under written: Videlicet sine omni jurisdictione coactivo, saluo etiam modo procedendi in hoc sacro concilio hactenus obseruato, That is to say, without all jurisdiction of compelling, also having the manner of proceeding hitherto observed in this holy council. By this you see, ●hat pope Eugenius did not only declare the council 〈◊〉 be lawfully continued, but also he declared his own error in revoking of his bulls of dissolution. Also by ●is legates he swore to defend the council and to keep ●he decree of the council of Constance, sessi. 4. which was ●ade against the Pope's superiority over the council. And thirdly that by his precedents he accepted such presidency as the council would grant, without all jurisdiction of compulsion, being himself compelled to betaine that order of proceeding which the council before ●is presidency was admitted, had observed. What Leo ●he tenth in his Laterane council decreed against the council of Basil, I have nothing to do with it, except 〈◊〉 be to prove that one pope going against the decrees of ●nother pope, and one council against another, that ●either of both is to be credited. How childish my insultation is, how void of victory my triumph, how ●nsoluble forsooth mine arguments are, as Bristol scof●eth, I leave to all reasonable men to consider.  
3. Touching the Constance council's presumption. 
Bristol   
I said it was horrible presumption, that the council 
Fulke.  of Constance decreed contrary to the word of God in plain words: That notwithstanding Christ instituted the sacrament to be received in both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive Church did so receive it: yet the custom of the Church of Rome shall prevail, and whosoever saith contrary it ●an heretic. These words he saith I print (as though I were a printer which was 70. miles off at least from the place where they were printed) in a distinct letter as the plain words of the council, whereas these are not the words of the council. Hear is the quarrel. No sir, I never meant to print these words as the words of the council, but as the sum and content of them, which because they were large I would not set down at large in a bymatter. But now being urged with falsification or at least false collection. I will set them down as they a 〈…〉 Cō. Const sess●. 13. without any such interruptions as is usual with you to make, that you might carry away the simple readen mind from the true sense of them. Cùm in nonnullis etc. whereas in certain parts of the world, certain parsons presume rashly to affirm. that Christian people ought to receive the sacrament of that eucharist, under both kinds o● bread & wine, & do communicate the lay people every where, not only under the kind of bread, but also under 〈◊〉 kind of wine, yea after supper, or otherwise not fasting, and stubbornly affirm that they ought so to be communicated against the laudable custom of the church reasonably approved, which as sacrilegious damnably they go about to reprove: hereof it is that this present holy general council of Constance, lawfully gathered together in the holy ghost, intending to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, having had before ripe deliberation of many Doctors both of the law of god and of man, declareth, decreeth, & defineth, that although Christ after supper did institute, & minister unto his disciples this holy sacrament under both kinds of bread & wine, yet this notwithstanding, the laudable authority of holy Canons & the approved custom of the Church hath observed & doth observe, that this sacrament ought not to be made after supper, neither to be received of the faithful not fasting, but in case of sickness or other necessity of right or of the Church granted or admitted. And as this custom to avoid certain dangers and offences is reasonably brought in, that although in the primitive church, this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, & afterward of them which make it, it is received under both kinds, & of the lay people only under the kind of bread; seeing it ought most steadfastly to be believed & by no means to be doubted, but that the whole body and blood of Christ is truly contained as well under the kind of bread, as under the kind of wine. Whereupon seeing such a custom by the church & holy fathers is reasonably brought in, & hath been very long observed, it must be taken for a law which it is not lawful to reprove, or with out the authority of the church to change at men's pleasure. ●herfore to say, that to keep this custom or law is sacrilege 〈◊〉 unlawful, it ought to be judged erroneous: and they ●hich stubbornly affirm the contrary of the premises, are 〈◊〉 be driven away as heretics, & to be grievously punished ●y that dyocessanes of the places or their officials, or by the inquisitor of heretical pravity, in those kingdoms or provinces, in which any thing perhaps shallbe attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the Canonical ●nd lawful functions which have been solemnly invented 〈◊〉 favour of the Catholic faith against heretics and ●heir fautors. Here you see the prelate's of the council take ●pon them as great authority in altering the matter of the sacrament, which is a necessary part of the institution thereof, ●s in ordering the time in which it shallbe ministered, which ●s no part of the institution thereof. Also that they confess that ●n the primitive church the sacrament was received in both ●inds, therefore they are presumptuous to say hoc non obstante, ●his notwithstanding, the custom of later years brought in ●s reasonable & shallbe observed as a law, the gainsayers ●herof being condemned & punished as heretics. Brist. cavilleth, that they say not the custom of the church of Rome, as I said: As though, when they speak of the custom of the church, they mean any other church but the church of R. Such babbles B. hath to cover their blasphemous & sacri●legious presumption.  
Touching certain false interpretations of scripture. 
Bristol. Fulke.   
To colour the false interpretations following, he commendeth the sayings of August. de doct. Christ. li. 1. ca 36. & lib. 3. ca 27. in which first he requireth every man principally to shoot at that sense of the writer in exposition of the scripture, but if he miss that sense & hit any other which is not repugnant to right faith, or is profitable to build charity towards god & our neighbour, he is not perniciously deceived etc. Upon this Allen in his offer to that protestant saith, Ar. 86. & 87. Let any man prove unto me, that the true & only church of god may falsely interpret any sentence of holy scripture, & I recant. This general offer without any qualification of not erring perniciously, or wilfully lying, as is contained in Saint Augustine's sayings, unto which Bristol would now seem to make relation, I did accept. And first I proved that pope Innocent with S. Augustine and all the Western Church did falsely interpret this scripture joan. 6. Except ye eat etc. and that to maintain a false opinion of the necessity of the communion for all persons, and even infants, that should have life everlasting, and therefore repugnant to right faith, as is more declared in the 2. part of this chapter.  
Secondly I noted diverse places of scripture, not only falsely but also ridiculously expounded, in the second council of Nice, to maintain idolatry against the express commandment of God, and therefore contrary to the right faith and the love of God. Concerning these interpretations Bristol saith, that they are not the interpretations of the council (whose interpretation they are not bound to defend, but only their definitions) but they are the interpretations of particular persons. To this I answer, they are contained in the synodal book sent into the Western Churches, to stir them up to idolatry (which book was answered by Carolus Magnus or by Alcuinus at his commandment, and in his name) therefore they are approved by the council, yea some of them are contained also in that report of the council, which is set down in the books of counsels. The text of lighting a candle, and putting it under a bushel, is affirmed of Bristol to be well applied in the Epistle of Constantinus, & his mother to the synod. But he is deceived. For there is no argument of setting of images upon the altar drawn out of that text which is so abused in the Synodal above rehearsed, confirmed by Carolus or Alcuinus.  
The second text, God made man according to his image: therefore we must have images in the Church: Bristol confesseth to be contained in the Epistle of pope Adrian to the Emperor. But the same is approved in the council, and is the pope's Epistle, whose credit is greater with you than the counsels. But he doth not conclude (you say) that therefore we must have images in the Church. What then? forsooth that a● Adam being the image of God is to be honoured, so every image is holy that i● made in the name of God, be it an image of Angels, prophets, Apostles, martyrs or just persons. This conclusion containeth more than I urged, namely the worshipping of images, & not the making of them only. And because you are so impudent to say, it is not the council, but pope Adrianus that so saith &c: I will let the reader understand, that in the second action, there were two Epistles of Pope Adrian, read in the synod, one to the Emperors, the other to Tharasius the patriarch of Constantinople. Afterward Peter and Peter's lieutenants of the Pope, required Tharasius to declare, whether he consented to the Pope's letters or no. Tharasius answered, that concerning the worshipping of images, he did allow the Pope's letters. Then said the Synod, universa sancta Synodus etc. The whole holy synod doth so believe and teach. Peter and Peter's Legates of the sea Aposto like said: Let the holy synod tell us, whether it receive the letters of the most holy Pope of the elder Rome or no. The holy synod answered: we follow them, we receive them, and allow them.  
The 3. text (As we have heard, so we have seen in the city of our God. ps. 48. to prove that God must not be known by only hearing of his word, but also by sight of images:) Bristol affirmeth that it is not the council that citeth it, but a Deacon called Epiphanius, which readeth it to the council out of a book of his own: I answer he readeth it with approbation and good liking of the council, which in effect is all one. But he citeth it not (saith Bristol) to show how God must be known, but about the story of Christ's manhood, nor to prove immediately, that the said story must be painted etc. as though God can be known but by Christ, for knowledge of whom, by imagery, he citeth this text of the Canticle also, Can. 2. show me thy face, & let me hear thy voice. And whether it be immediately, or mediately, certain it is, that he citeth this text, Pal. 48. to prove, that the pictures of saints are rightly delivered in the Church, none otherwise, than the reading of the holy gospel.  
The 4. text falsely interpreted in sense, & falsified in words is joan. 10. ver. 29. My father which gave them unto me (speaking of his sheep) is greater than al. Which text in the Council of Lateran, holden under Pope Innocent the third, is falsified in words after this manner. Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus. That which the father hath given me is greater than all: and interpreted to prove the eternal begetting of Christ of the substance of his father. To this Bristol answereth her● is no false interpretation in D. Allens sense. What sense Allen hath of false interpretation, I know not, sure I am, that a text cannot be truly interpreted in sense, when it is corrupted in words, which make the sense. Secondly he saith that of my two crimes, I must strike out one: for supposing the text to be as the council allegeth it, the interpretation is not unapt. But I reply, supposing the text to be as it is in deed: Such falsifying or corrupting of the words must needs draw with it not only an unapt but also a wrong interpretation. But what colour of reason have you (saith he) that the council hath falsified the words of that text? Is it not in the vulgar Latin translation verbatim, as the council allegeth it? yes verily. And so is the council cleared of that crime also. Not so soon as you ween: for if any falsifying or corrupting of the words of the scripture, have crept into your translation, it had been the counsels duty, not to have winked at it, if it could have seen it, much less to have confirmed it, so far forth, as of so many texts which clearly prove Christ to be consubstantial with his father, it could find none, but take this corrupted and falsified text. But the most ancient Latin writers, saint Augustine, saint Ambrose, and saint Hilary do read jump as we do, saith Bristol.  
That doth not amend the matter one whit, but showeth the error of the Latin Church to have the longer continued, which in the council of Lateran (if it could have espied it) ought rather to have been reform then confirmed. But will you change your copy (saith Bristol) and frame your accusation anew against the translation as differing from the Original, that is from the Greek? Sir I need not change my copy, for my accusation is already framed that this text is falsified and corrupted contrary to the original truth: yet Bristol goeth on. But afore you do so, take my counsel with you, and be sure first that the Greek is so as you say. For some Greek copies, of ancient also had even as we have: as namely, the copy which saint cyril, being a Greek Doctor, expoundeth Cyr. lib. 7. in joan. cap. 10.  
In deed it were not amiss, to take the council of such a learned Grecian as Bristol is, that I might be sure how the Greek text is. For he can tell me of ancient Greek copies, yea namely of that which saint cyril a Greek doctor did follow, and expound, which agreeth with the vulgar translation in this text.  
Verily the sight of such a copy would do me great pleasure. But until I may see it, I will suspend my judgement, and in the mean time, I would borrow a word or two with Thomas Stapleton the peruser and allower of this book of Bristol. I pray you sir, Have you perused and allowed thi● book? What else? do you not see it printed in the first leaf, Perused and allowed by me Thomas Stapleton? And are you so good a peruser and allower of books, Master Stapleton, that you cannot espy in them Chalk taken for Cheese? Do you not see your scholar Bristol allege saint cyril a Greek doctor to prove the truth of the greek text lib. 7. in joan cap. 10. and when all cometh to all, there is no such book of cyril the ancient Greek doctor extant, but it is poor jodocus Clicthovius a late Latin writer, that hath supplied those 4. books of cyril that are lost. Wherefore to return to you M. Bristol except your council be better and savour more of good learning and knowledge, you may keep it for your friends. As for your assertion, without doubt that the copy which your authentical translator followed, had even as he translated, helpeth you little or nothing: which if it were granted, how can you prove that he translated it as you now read it?  
Seeing it is certainly known to them that have conferred his translation with the original, that beside that in diverse places he giveth not the true sense of the Greek, in many texts also he is corrupted, where he had translated right. Wherefore how fully I am answered on every side concerning this text as you boast in the end, let the reader's judge.  
In the last place you set down my words Ar. 7. in which I accuse the Church of Rome for thrusting upon us that corrupt Latin translation, which all learned men do know to be corrupt, in such texts as are the most coulerable places for the defence of popish doctrine, of which I give one example for all. They allege the text (1. Cor. 10. Qui stat, videat ne cadat: he that standeth, let him take heed● he fall not) against the certainty of faith, where as the Greek hath not, he that standeth, but, he that thinketh he standeth, etc.  
Bristol biddeth me look better in the text, their translation is not as I charge it, but even as I say the Greek to be: Qui se existimat stare etc.: And therefore in the margin he biddeth, stand out of his light that the child may see. Might not I say shore up your eyes sir. Richard, and see that I do not say, the text is so translated, but so alleged. They allege the text, Qui stat, videat ne cadat. And if you require mine author who allegeth it so: look in Haymo upon the very place, and you shall find these very words. Qui stat in fide & operibus, videat ne cadat: He that standeth in faith and works, let him see that he fall not. And if you would have a later writer that so allegeth it, look in Gregory Martin one of your brood, who in his book of schism allegeth it in so many words: Qui stat, videat ne cadat, in the first chapter of his book.  
And what hath brought them to this understanding, but your corrupt translation? Qui se existimat star●, he that judgeth or is persuaded that he standeth. For existimare signifieth properly to judge or esteem upon good grounds, to think certainly, and not like putare, which word Ambrose useth in the interpretation of this text, and signifieth to think vainly. And so is existimare used by your translator in other places. Rom. 6. Ita & vos existimate, etc. So you esteem or judge yourselves to be dead unto sin etc. And again 1. Cor. 6 Sic nos existimet homo ut ministros, Christi etc. Let a man thus esteem or judge of us, as of the ministers of Christ. Again jac. 1. Omne gaudium existimate etc. My brethren count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations. In all which places existimare signifieth to think certainly & not vainly, as in this text, 1. Cor. 10. It should be qui se putat stare, he that vainly thinketh that he standeth, let him take heed that he falleth not. I confess I might have brought an hundredth places of scripture in which the corruption is more clear unto every simple man's understanding, but this I took to be sufficient, seeing to prove the corruption of the translation, was not the principal matter of the demand which I answered, but to yield a reason why the popish Church did not as well corrupt the text of the Testament as the true doctrine contained in the same.    

CAP. VII.  
That he hath no other shift against our manifold Evidences 
Bristol.  (so clear they be) but the name of only Scripture, as well about each controversy, as also about the meaning of the scripture itself: And how timorous he maketh us, and how bold he beareth himself hereupon.  
First he chargeth me with shameful confessions, that I have been feign to make against mine own side, and 
Fulke.  for their side: which what they are, you have heard already, and what shame I have gotten by them, and what advantage their side hath of them. Next he promiseth to show the same more clearly by running over those common evidences of Christian truth, out of which he framed his Motives and demands, which I confess to be all against me, because I take exception against them, & say that only scripture is good evidence in such suits etc. But what I confess or deny of those evidences may best be seen in my Retentive against his motives and demands.  

The first part.  
How he excepteth by only scripture, against all other evidences 
Bristol  in the controversies that are between us, and first against the rule to know heresy etc.  
He rehearseth many sentences of mine mangled & 
Fulke.  interrupted with his own glosses in which I profess, that No opinion is heresy which is not contrary to the holy scriptures, although it be accounted heresy of the world: where he slandereth me to term them the world, which before I confessed to be the true Church. The places Art. 44. where I speak of them which preaching in these later times against popery, have been of the romish Church condemned for heretics, as Waldo, Wickelief, Hus, etc. In the process following where I said (that if Aerius had not been an Arrian, the opinion he held against prayer for the dead, could not have made him an heretic) Bristol counting my saying to be blasphemy, (belike against the Pope's kitchen) addeth that it seemeth I knew not the purpose of Augustine in his book de Haer. which he saith was the purpose of Epiphanius also, not to confute but only to report of heresies that had benbefore his time: Seeing it is enough to know that the catholic Church's judgement is against them: And that it helpeth much the faithful heart only to know what must not be believed, although he be not able to confute it by disputing. And why seem I ignorant of this purpose? except it be because I said, that neither Epiphanus nor Augustine, reproved by scripture, that which in Aerius they counted to be an error. But the case is so clear (saith Bristol) that the very adversary confesseth, that it was the Catholic Church that judged Aerius to be an heretic. Yea sir for his Arrianisme, but I never confessed, neither can you ever prove that any judgement of the Catholic Church in general council passed against Aerius for denying prayer for the dead, before the days of Epiphanius or Augustine, although the error of prayer for the ●ead in that age was commonly received, not upon any good ground of Canonical scripture, but upon a corrupt custom first brought in by heretics. Afterward where I following an allegory of dogs used by Allen, tell him that he must not teach his scholars to bark & bawl against us, nothing but The Church, the Church, like ●inkers curs etc. he crieth out in the margin, O worthy estimation that he hath of the Church, as though, I think less worthily of the Church, because I deride the vain boasting of the name of the Church in them which are nothing less than the true church. Neither do I appoint mine enemy not to invade me with a gun (as he saith) when I make the scripture only to be my weapon both invasive and defensive. But it is a great absurdity as he ●weeneth, that I say an heretic is he which in the Church, obstinately maintaineth an opinion contrary to the scriptures: seeing S. john saith, exierunt a nobis, they are gone out from us. And if an heretikees be a man in the Church we are cockesure, with all heretics, and the Papists only in danger. Why Bristol, make ye no difference between him that is in the Church, and him the is of the Church? They be not all members of the Church, that be in the Church, and therefore S. john saith of them that are gone from us, If they had been of us they would have tarried with us. And do you account him an heretic that holdeth an error clean out of the Church? then may you count all Pagans, Turks, and jews, to be heretics. What say you of Antichrist that sitteth ever in the Temple of God? it helpeth not heretics, that they rise up in the visible Church, from whence also they are often times cast out, so long as they be not members of the body of Christ, which is the invisible Church, and heavenly jerusalem, which is the mother of us all.  
Where I said, that whosoever holdeth an opinion obstinately, which he is not able to prove by the word of God, although he have many authors before him, yet he is nevertheless an heretic. Bristol addeth in the margin, though it be S. Augustine himself, and though he hold the foundation here. cap. 5. Touching the former part, I say not only though it were Saint Augustine, but although it were Saint Peter himself or an Angel from heaven, Gal. 1. Touching the later part, I answer, my meaning is of such opinions, as are against the foundation, and so is my whole discourse, purge 412. whence this saying is borrowed. Again, where he concludeth that I confess Aerius, jovinian, and Vigilantius to have been condemned by the true Church of Christ, in such points of doctrine, as we agree with him: I answer as before of Aerius alone, I never made such confession.  
In that I refuse to find the first authors of all their errors, he saith, I am feign to flee to my cold exception of only scripture, as though to justify our doctrine, by the Apostles, and that so sensibly, were not enough. O sensible justification, by which all errors, whose first authors cannot be found must be laid upon the Apostles. But most ridiculous of all is Fulke, where he cometh in with this exception upon Tertullians' rule. Id esse verum etc. That is true what soever is first, that is false & forged which is later. But how shall the first doctrine be known, but by the word of God, wherein all the doctrine of God is taught? What is here I pray you to be laughed at? Forsooth, Bristol saith, T●●●ullian hath there an other rule against such heresies, as presumed to say, their founders lived in the Apostles time. But this rule he giveth against all such, as rise any time after as Aerius, Luther Caluine, etc. bidding us consider what was taught and belecued immediately before they arose: for that undoubtedly is the truth, and their later doctrine is falsehood. But what if Bristol take Richard for Robert, is not he then ridiculous? The rule of Tertullian whereof I speak, Purg. 410. & Ar. 42. is written in his book adversus Praxeam. although Allen do falsely quote it de praescriptionibus. But what if Tertullian even in this rule given against heretics in his book de praescriptionibus do expressly affirm the word of God to be the trial of that which 〈◊〉 former and true to convince that which is latter and ●lse, is not Bristol most ridiculous of all? His words ●e these: Sed ab, excessu revertar ad principalitatem veritatis & ●osteritatem mendaci●atis deputandam ex illius quoque parabo 〈…〉 patrocinio, quae bonum semen frumenti a Domino seminatum ●rimò constituit avenarum aut sterilis foeni adulterium, ab ini●ico diabolo postea superducit. Propriè enim doctrinarum di●tinctionem figurat, quia & alibi verbum Dei seminis simili●do est. Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur, id esse dominicum & ●erum, quod sit prius tradi●●m: id autem extraneum & sal●um, quod sie posterius immissum. Ea sententia manebit aduer●s posteriores quasque haereses, quibus nulla constantia de con●ciencia compettt ad defendendam sibi veritatem. But from this excess, I will return to show the priority of truth & po●terioritie of falsehood even out of the defence of the parable ●hich first of all setteth forth the good seed of wheat sown ●y our Lord, and afterward bringeth on the counterfeiting of Oats or barren grass by the enemy the ●iuel. For it figureth properly the difference of doctrines, because elsewhere also the word of GOD is the similitude of seed: So by the very order, it is made manifest that to be the Lords & true which was foremost delivered, that to be strange and false which is cast in afterwards. This decree shall remain against later heresies whatsoever, which have no constancy of conscience to de●end the truth to be on the irside. Where is there here any word of Bristows gloss of Tertullian bidding us consider & c? I think he had not red the place in Tertullian himself, but followed some papists collection upon it, and because he could not avoid that which I said, he thought it best by calling it so much and so often ridiculous, to laugh it out, as they say, when he was not able otherwise to answer it.  
Likewise I said, that we refuse not the rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis concerning antiquity, so you can prove God to be the author, the Prophets and Apostles for witnesses: under this antiquity that which had an erroneus beginning shall have a shameful ending, Purg. 399. Hear Bristol taketh advantage of the Printers error, although he be admonished 〈◊〉 of in the Corrections, and not content with that, 〈…〉 fi my words making me to say, as for witness 〈◊〉 this antiquity we pass not for them. Yes 〈◊〉 we esteem all good witnesses of that ancient 〈◊〉 whereof God is the author. But you say the rule w 〈…〉 receive, proveth the Apostles to be authors of sole 〈…〉 payer for the dead in the Mass, & such like articles 〈◊〉 taught and believed, before Luther began such 〈…〉 vations etc. But I reply, that Vincentius rule, is 〈◊〉 such fools fable, but requireth antiquity to be 〈…〉 tinued always even from Christ, which seeing you 〈◊〉 not show, no● other conditions which he requi 〈…〉 for your articles, his rule helpeth you nothing at a● 〈◊〉 rule which he handleth at large throughout his b 〈…〉 is briefly set down in this sentence. In ipsa 〈…〉 Ecclesia mag 〈…〉 〈◊〉 est, 〈◊〉 id 〈◊〉 q●●d 〈◊〉, q●●d 〈…〉 o, 〈◊〉 ab 〈…〉 us 〈…〉 est 〈…〉 propri●que C 〈…〉 n (q●●d issa 〈…〉) q 〈…〉 d 〈…〉. A 〈…〉 the Catholic Church itself we must greatly 〈◊〉 that we hold that thing which hath been every 〈…〉, which hath been always, which hath been of all 〈◊〉 believed, for that is truly and properly Ca 〈…〉 (which the very force and reason of the name d 〈…〉 r) that comprehendeth all things truly 〈…〉 lie. Examine your articles by this rule a●d you 〈◊〉 find not one of them catholic. So that my excep〈…〉 of the sovereign authority of only scripture 〈…〉 death 〈◊〉 well with the rules both of Tertulli●● and Vince 〈…〉 Lyri 〈…〉. For to the truth, as Aristotle saith, all 〈…〉 ges agree that are true, but falsehood soon bewrayeth itself.  
2 Aga 〈…〉 the A 〈…〉 〈◊〉. 
Bristol. F 〈…〉.   
Aga 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉ed traditions of the Apo 〈…〉, I make exception▪ of the writings of the Apostles to b●● the only c 〈…〉 yne 〈…〉 esse of the●● true tradition. A●d I say All●● blasphemously f●thereth ●ppon the Apo 〈…〉, the institution of popish prayer and sacrifice for the 〈…〉. 〈…〉 we chargeth me nevertheless to affirm, that 〈◊〉, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, and a great ma 〈…〉 are witnesses hereof, Pur. 362. wherein he shame 〈…〉 y belieth me, for that I do only rehearse part of 〈…〉 s words which affirmeth them to be witnesses. 〈…〉 ch thing Bristol might easily see by the diversi 〈…〉 of print, if he had not been disposed to ●●●under me. 〈…〉 o this by the example of Allen, which is a great po 〈…〉, I pose the Papists with this question: Why God 〈…〉 uld have none of the Apostles to put this matter or 〈…〉 e word thereof in writing, which afterward should 〈◊〉 disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bristol after much bibling out of S. Augustin, 〈…〉 e Apostles have not left in writing the whole order 〈…〉 celebration of the sacraments: answereth, that one piece of 〈◊〉 that it was omitted by the apostles, was for bre 〈…〉 s sake. But I (Bristol) do not speak of any order or 〈…〉 me of ceremonies, which because they are variable, 〈…〉cording to times, places & persons, the apostles have 〈◊〉 prescribed: but of the doctrine of praying & sacrificing 〈…〉 r the dead, which in much less brevity than the 〈…〉 stles used, might have been without any tedi 〈…〉 nes let down, at the least in one word mentioned. 〈…〉 herfore brevity could be no piece of the cause, but a 〈…〉 over & miserable refuge of a papist driven to the wall 〈…〉 r want of a better answer. But if this be a piece, what is then 〈◊〉 supplement of the whole cause? Bristol answereth in these words: 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 g. Which 〈…〉 so many ●f 〈…〉 one of ●wspan● w●●ld 〈…〉. Do I imagine (Bristol▪ & am so greatly 〈…〉ceiued▪ I follow not mine own imagination but their 〈…〉 ne writing. S. john testifieth that those things which 〈◊〉 had written, were so 〈…〉 to obtain everlasting life 〈…〉 y believing them. Io 〈…〉. S. Luke treweth his purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 th' in a 〈◊〉 sum, the truth of all things, 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 les delivered, concerning the doctrine & 〈…〉 ng of Christ L 〈…〉. Ac 〈…〉. S. Paul 〈…〉eth that the holy scriptures were able to make the man of God perfe 〈…〉 prepared to all good works, 2 Tim. 2. But you have great reason to prove that they purposed not to put all in writing: because neither so many of them, nor o 〈…〉 of them so often, would have mentioned one thing: wh 〈…〉 as contrariwise it is manifest thereby, that they study not so much for brevity but that they might have expressed in a word or two prayers & sacrifice for that dea● seeing so many of them, & some one so often, doth mention one thing. Again it were against reason, that they should mention one thing so often, whic● though it be profitable, yet it is not necessary to be often mentioned: & to omit altogether such matten as are necessary to be known, and not in one word mention them. The purpose of the holy ghost, that Bristol doth imagine, were in writing the scriptures to a bare effect: that the gospels were written only to show Christ to say Consummatum est and all things to be fulfilled of him which were written of him: the Acts of the Apostles to show, but as it were the first birth of the Church: the Apocalypse to show the whole course of the Church, to the end of the world, The other books were written (saith he) specially against the perfidious jews & other false masters of that time: As likewise in every age afterward we have the Ecclesiastical (I say not the Canonical) writers and counsels. See you not how the blasphemous dog▪ restraineth the use of the Apostles epistles specially to the time in which they were written, & compareth Ecclesiastical writers and counsels, with the canonical scriptures? If this that he saith were true, the scriptures were not sufficient to make a man wise to salvation as S. Paul saith without traditions & Ecclesiastical writers. 2. Tim. 3.  
Those things which S. Paul promiseth to set in order when he cometh, 1 Cor. 11. I said must be understood not of doctrine but of ceremonies, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify. Bristol answereth, that the solemn prayer for the dead in the celebration of the sacrifice, is one of Saint Paul's ordinances. I reply, if the doctrine of praying for the dead were contained Saint Paul's writing, yea, or in any part of the cano 〈…〉 all Scriptures, we would not strive for the form 〈◊〉 prayer. But if we may add new doctrines upon 〈…〉 ler of the Apostles tradition, neither is the Scrip 〈…〉 e so perfect as the holy Ghost affirmeth it to be, 〈…〉 there can the gap be shut from any heresy, to 〈…〉 as'st itself of the tradition of the Apostles, as the Va 〈…〉 tinians, and other heretics have done, and all he 〈…〉 ikes may do.  
But tradition of the Apostles is as good as their writings. To this objection I answer, that their writings 〈◊〉 the only true testimony of their tradition to us. 〈…〉 stowe replieth: So were they not to the Thessalonians, 〈◊〉 they had of S. Paul traditions partly by word of mouth, 〈…〉 tly by writing. I rejoin, that we have no traditions 〈◊〉 the Apostes, but by their writing we never heard 〈◊〉 deliver any thing by word of mouth, but we know 〈…〉 it writings contain the sum of their preachings. Concerning the doubtfulness and contradiction that 〈…〉 yde was in the fathers themselves, about those mat 〈…〉 s that are not contained in the Scriptures: Bristol 〈…〉 nswereth first, their doubts are not of the traditions, 〈…〉 t of circumstances of persons, and other matters con 〈…〉ning the traditions, which is as much as I showed by 〈…〉 amples and testimonies out of their writings, Purg. 〈…〉 7. Ar. 39 Pur. 317.  
The contradiction supposed to be in Chrysostom (where he sayeth, first that small help can be procured for the dead, afterward he sayeth, the Apostles knew that much commodity came to the dead by praying ●or them) Bristol answereth is none at all. For in 〈…〉 e first place, he speaketh of rich men which did not pro 〈…〉 e any comfort to their souls by their riches, that their friends 〈…〉 n procure but little in respect of that they might have procured 〈…〉 'em selves: because a man's own works are also meritorious 〈◊〉 everlasting reward so are not his friends works meritori 〈…〉 unto him at all, no nor so satisfactorious of temporal pain, 〈…〉 his own nothing like. But how a mans own works 〈…〉 his friends works, may be either meritorious or satisfactorious any thing at all, he bringeth no proof 〈◊〉 all. And that he sayeth of Chrysostom is utterly false for if istos be referred in the former sentence defleam 〈…〉 istos, unto those rich men so dying only, what reaso● is there, why orantes pro istis, should not be referred unto them also? But seeing the memory which he sai●● was decreed of the Apostles, was general for all the● that departed in faith, why should not that, much profit coming thereby, pertain to them, of who●● he said before, that small help they could have? Likewise, that I added further of the Cathecumeni wh●● Chrysostom judged of helping them, Bristol pas 〈…〉 over and sayeth never a word unto it.  
3 Against the Church's authority. 
Bristol.   
I say plainly, the practice and authority of the church, without the word of God, revealed in the scripture●, 
Fulke.  is no rule of truth. Where I commend Tertull 〈…〉 for confessing that prayers and oblations for the dead, are not taken out of the Scriptures, Bristol sayeth I am hasty to take that which Tertullian doth not give, as he hath showed in the third chapter: but seeing in the third Chapter, he referreth me to the 9 Chapter, thither also will I refer him for answer.  
Where Allen allegeth a rule of S. Augustine, Quòd legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi: that the order of the ch●●ches prayer (saith Bristol) is even a plain prescription to all the faithful what to believe, because Fulke could not make his flourish with that end, forward, he turneth the staff, as though S. Augustine & D. Allen had said, that the law of believing should make a law of praying. And here he crieth out of falsification by changing. So sayeth S. Augustine (saith Bristol:) in that sense speaketh S. Augustine often against the Pelagians (sayeth Allen) but in what book or chapter neither of both doth show among so many treatises as Augustine hath written against the Pelagians. Wherefore if I have altered the form of words yet without falsification, especially seeing it is a more probable sense and agreeable to the scriptures, 〈…〉 t faith should teach us to pray, rather than prayer 〈…〉 che 〈◊〉 to believe. For how shall they call upon 〈◊〉, sayeth the Apostle, in whom they have not belee 〈…〉 d? Rom. 10. But seeing there is a mutual relation 〈…〉 ween the cause and the effects, the one argueth & 〈…〉 oveth the other. For as faith teacheth men first to 〈…〉 ye, so the prayer is an argument of the faith, accor 〈…〉 g to which it is conceived. But true faith come 〈…〉 th' only by hearing the word of God, therefore 〈…〉 e prayer cometh only by hearing the word of 〈…〉 d, and is not acceptable to God except it be framed according to the word of God. After this, he sayeth, I 〈◊〉 as bold to except against the practice comen 〈…〉 d even in the canonical scripture, because I allow 〈…〉 t the practice of judas Machabaeus contained in the 〈…〉 fane and lying book of the Maccabees.  
I said Ar. 86. There is never heresy but there is as 〈…〉 at doubt of the church as of the matter in question: 〈…〉 erefore only the Scripture is the stay of a man's con〈…〉 nce. Hereof Bristol gathereth this great absurdi 〈◊〉: Because heretics make doubt of the Church, this heretic 〈◊〉 that no Christian lean unto it. Yes verily, I will have 〈◊〉 men that know the Church, lean to the Church, de 〈…〉 ding truth against heresies: but for them that doubt 〈◊〉 the truth, and of the Church, I say only scripture i● 〈◊〉 stay of their conscience, to try the truth and the Church both: seeing both heretics & Catholics make as great challenge to the Church as to the truth.  
But some heretics make doubt of the Scriptures (sayeth he) either all, or some piece, as you do of the ●achabees. I answer, if any deny all Scriptures, 〈…〉 ey are more like Pagans and Atheists than heretics, 〈…〉 th' whom we are not to reason by authority of 〈…〉 riptures, but by other inducements, such as were 〈…〉 d to the Pagans. Against those heretics that re〈…〉 i've some part of the Scriptures, we are to dispute 〈…〉 t of those Scriptures which they receive, as our savi 〈…〉 r Christ confuted the Saducees out of the books of 〈…〉 oses, because they received none other Scripture. For the book of Macha bees we doubt not, but are certain, it is a profane book, as I have showed by many arguments, never received in the primitive Church f●● 400. years after Christ.  
Where I say we submitted ourselves to all Churche●, but so that they allow no consent or submission, but 〈◊〉 the truth which must be tried only by god's word● Bristol saith with that, but so we will consent the true●● to jacke straw. Verily to consent unto jacke stra●● in truth, I take it to be none absurdity: but I speak not only of consent, but also of submission which we are not ready to yield to any but such whose authority 〈◊〉 reverence.  
As for the 4. rules enacted by Parliament, for condemning heresy, if Bristol would understand them like a quiet subject, and not deride them like a scornful traitor, he might understand, that the three later are not contrary to the first, which determineth heresy by contrariety to the canonical scripture, which is declared either in the 4. first general counsels, or in any other general council agreeing with the scripture, or may upon occasion be declared by Parliament hereafter: Not that the Parliament ever did imagine that it had authority to make truth heresy, or to make any thing heresy, which is not contrary to the canonical scriptures.  
After this he chargeth me that I will not believe the Apostles nor the Angels without scriptures. What if I would not? were I worse than the Thessalonians, or Bereans, which daily searched the scriptures, to see if those things that were taught by the Apostles were even so? Act. 17. But I abuse the scripture (saith Bristol) and turn the curse that saint Paul pronounceth, Gal. 1. which was of preaching, as if it were of only scripture. I answer, my words are these, if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed: but seeing we have no certainty of the word of God, since the Apostles departure, but the canonical scriptures, which do contain all that they preached, the same curse is rightly applied to them that teach any other way of salvation, then that which is taught in the holy Scriptures. The rest of this division is spent in showing that I hold 〈…〉 ill my exception of only Scriptures against counsels, 〈…〉 he see apostolic and succession of bishops, with a note 〈◊〉 the end, what a franklin I am to renounce such goodly evidence, whereof if I had any colour myself, 〈…〉 o mountybanke peddler, is so facing and boasting, as I ●nd my fellows. As frank as I seem in renouncing ●hat goodly evidence, I trust to be careful enough; to ●olde fast the evidence of eternal life, which is the ho 〈…〉 y Scriptures of God: and if I and my fellows boast in ●hem, because our boasting is in God, I doubt not but ●ee shallbe better accepted of him, than they that count ●hat boasting a stolen exception, and boast in vanity, 〈…〉 ust in lying, and at least make flesh for their arm, & ●heir heart departeth from the living God.  
4 Against the fathers. 
Bristol.   
Although I challenge the Papists to prove their do 〈…〉 rind 
Fulke.  of Purgatory and prayers for the dead, out of the 〈…〉 uncient catholic fathers that lived within 200. years 〈…〉ter Christ: because I know they cannot, yet in that 〈…〉 allenge, I say nothing contradictory to my former 〈…〉 ssertion, that only the word of God contained in the 〈…〉 oly Scriptures, is the judge of all doctrine, and trial of truth, and stay of a Christian man's conscience against any thing that is taught to be believed unto salvation, or concerning the worship of God, either contrary to it, or beside it. But Fulkes two onelyes (sayeth Bristol) namely only the most ancient Church, and only Scripture, are utterly without all ground, and but 〈…〉 ere voluntary. If it be without ground, to make the word of God the only judge of godliness, and the most ancient Church the best witness thereof, let every Christian conscience consider. As for the voluntariness, ●f you understand the challenges to be voluntary, because you will not accept them, let your will stand in 〈…〉 eede of reason: but if you call them voluntary, because you need not accept them, and yet approve yourselves good Christians: remember who it is, that saith, my sheep hear my voice and not a strangers, & let every man see whereto the brag of antiquity is come, when you will not be tied to the most ancient Church's testimony, and the eldest writers of the same.  
Now, concerning other by quarrels, and cavils, whereas I said: Whatsoever we find in the father's agreeable to the Scriptures, we receive it, with their praise: and whatsoever is disagreeable to the scriptures, we refuse with their leave. Bristol noteth within a parenthesis: He meaneth expressed in the Scriptures. But who made him so privy of my meaning? my words import no such thing: for many things are agreeable to the scriptures that are not expressed in them. I borrowed my phrase out of S. Augustine Contra Crescon homil. lib. 2. Cap. 32. which speaketh of Cyprian, that which I spoke of all the fathers in general. Ego huius epistolae authoritate non teneor, q 〈…〉 literas Cypriani, non ut canonicas habeo, sed ea● ex canonic●● considero, & quoth in eyes divinarum scripturarum authori 〈…〉 congruit, cum laud eius accipio, quod autem non congruit, cu● pace eius respuo. I am not holden by the authority of this Epistle, because I do not account the writings of Cyprian as canonical, but I consider them by the canonical, and that which in them agreeth with the authority of the holy Scriptures, I receive it with his praise, but that which agreeth not, I refuse it with his leave. I think Bristol will teach S. Augustine shortly, by that which agreeth with the Scripture, to mean only that which is expressed in so many words.  
Where I said, that when the fathers are opposed against the manifest word of God, and the credit of the Apostles, there is no cause that we should be carried away with them. Bristol sayeth, in the margin, a● though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles. And what call you this but an opposition of the doctors to the Apostles, when we say, The Apostles have not taught prayers for the dead in any of their writings: you answer, but the doctors have taught prayers for the dead in their writings.  
Where I say the authority of mortal men, is not to be received, he noteth our absurdity, because not only Melancton and such like (as Allen hath told ●s) were mortal men: but also in the same term of mortal men, are the Apostles themselves comprehended. And what of this? Do we build upon the authority of Melancton, or of Peter and Paul, as they were mortal men? No verily: We build upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, jesus Christ being the corner stone, and the only author of the doctrine, whereof the Prophets and Apostles are witnesses, who spoke and writ as they were moved by the holy ghost, and therefore their writings we receive as the word of God, which the spirit of God hath endited by the pen of the Apostles.  
Where I said: We dare not depend upon any one man●●udgement, for we must depend only upon God's word. Bristol answereth: Even so dealt the unbelievers, and the doubtful and weak with the Apostles in their life time, yea, and ●ith Christ himself: and yet to win such persons, both the Apostles and Christ himself, condescended to them accordingly. And why do not you follow the example of Christ, & of his Apostles, to win so many thousands, as do refuse your doctrine, because you do not justify it by the authority of the holy Scriptures? But the faithful, (you think) for all that were not so strait laced, but believed them upon their own word, both Christ and his Apostles, because of the spirit of truth, that he sent to them. And God be thanked, we as faithful men, acknowledge without controversy, the spirit of truth in Christ, and his Apostles. But he hath not sent his spirit to them only (sayeth Bristol) but also to his Church after them for ever. We doubt not, but he hath given his spirit to his Church, but not in such full measure, as to his Apostles. And if he had, how should we know that Church that hath the same spirit, but by trial of the scriptures, which were undoubtedly written by the same spirit. Bristol saith, the faithful will no less believe the Church, at all times, for the same spirit, than the Apostles. He must first prove, the spirit so given to the Church, that she can no more err in her decrees, than the Apostles could in their writings. Secondly, if that were proved, the trial of the Scriptures is necessary to discern the true Church from all false congregations, which all boast of the spirit of truth, as much as the true Church. And seeing the holy ghost by his instrument S. john, biddeth us not believe every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God, we know none so sure a trial, as the consent of their doctrine with the holy scriptures, whether it be a multitude of men, or several persons, of one age, or another, of one degree or other, that offereth to teach any doctrine, which he or they pretend to have of the spirit of God.  
Last of all, where I said: Age can never make falsehood to be truth, and therefore I w●y not your proud brags worth a straw. Bristol noteth in the margin, It is pride to follow the fathers, and humility to condemn them. Whereto I answer, to boast of the fathers to maintain an old error, is stinking pride, and it is not against true humility to make fathers and mothers, and all things else subject to the truth of God's word, revealed in the holy scriptures.   

The second part.  
Being told that the question between us is not (as he maeketh 
Bristol.  it) of the Scriptures authority, but of the meaning: how there likewise against all the expositors, he maketh the same exception of only scripture, requiring also scripture to be expounded by scripture.  
When in all this Chapter, you deny, only scripture 
Fulke.  to be of sovereign authority, sufficiency, and credit, to teach us all the will of God, are you not impudent, to say, the question is not of the authority of the Scriptures? But I supposing the controversies to be of the meaning, and not of the authority, Pur. 363. do answer nothing whether the likelihood b● on our side, or on the ancient doctor's side, for the meaning of the scripture. What then? I answer, the question of the meaning of the scriptures is needless in that controversy: where some of the doctors confess prayer for the dead not to be grounded on the Scriptures, other wrist the Scriptures so manifestly, that the Papists themselves are ashamed to use those texts for such purposes. This answer I trust, will satisfy reasonable men for that controversy. After this, he sayeth, I count myself and my companions happy, for such blind presumption, to search the meaning of the Scriptures, only out of the Scriptures, without the commentaries of doctors, but as he troweth, not without the commentaries of Caluine. But herein, as in all things almost, he belieth me: for I never spoke word against the reading of the commentaries of doctors in search of the Scriptures meaning, but only against absolute credit to be given to their exposition, without weighing how it agreeth with the holy Scriptures in other places.  
Likewise, where I compare the whole heap of superstition & error, out of which Allen raiseth a mist of men's devices to a dunghill: Bristol noteth, that I make the doctor's writings a dunghill. Surely what superstition or error so ever be in the doctors, as the sweeping of a fair house, is meet to be cast on a dunghill. Let Bristol or Allen, if he list, say there is no superstition or error in any of the doctors. And yet it followeth not, that the doctor's writings are a dunghill, more than that a king's palace is a dunghill, because the sweep thereof are meet for the dunghill.  
To pass over his railing terms of drunkenness, & blindness, etc. Let us come to the meaning of the scriptures, where I said, we shallbe never the more certain of the truth, whether we challenge, or leave the likelihod of understanding the scriptures to the doctors.  
Bristol answereth, whosoever expoundeth the scripture unto that wherein the doctors do agree, shall be ever most certain of truth (which is enough) though not always certain of that same very places meaning. We are then much the near, when the question is of the scriptures meaning, if by the consent of the doctors, we cannot be certain of the scriptures▪ meaning. And if that truth (as we believe that all truth) is in the scriptures, how can we be certain of the truth by the agreement of the doctors, where we cannot be certain of the meaning of the scriptures?  
Where I answer, that we have our measure of God's spirit, as the doctors had, although we agree not with them in all interpretations, even as Cyprian and Cornelius, were both endued with God's spirit, although they agreed not in exposition and judgement of the scriptures: Bristol replieth, that Cyprian was of Cornelius his judgement implicitè, though explicitè, he were of an erroneous judgement. And so is every Catholic erring of ignorance, in effect of the truth with other Catholics not erring, because he quealy. continueth in unity with them, and doth not obstinately hold his error against them. But so is not the case between the old Doctors and us: for neither will we be reform by them, neither would they be reform by A●rius, iovinianus etc. whom he calleth our forefathers.  
If you have no greater diversity than this, the case will be all one, for neither would Cyprian be reform by Cornelius, neither would Cornelius be reform by Cyprian. But if the old Doctors had heard as good reasons against prayer for the dead, of Catholics in their time, as we can make in this time, although they would not be reform by Aerius an heretic, yet charity moveth us to think, they would have yielded to the truth revealed by a Catholic.  
Where I conclude, that the hard places of scripture▪ are best understood by conference of the easier, adding the ordinary means of wit, learning, etc. adding that whosoever is negligent in this search may eadie be deceived: Bristol noteth, a comfortable do 〈…〉 rind for the ignorant forsooth: As though any Christi 〈…〉 man or woman, aught to be ignorant in the 〈…〉 riptures, so far forth as they teach the way of shall 〈…〉ation: otherwise it is no discomfort unto them, al●●ough they understand not every hard place of the scriptures.  
After this he gathereth, that I place all in a man's own 〈…〉 iligence to trust no man nor men, but to read the scriptures, 〈…〉 onferre the places, and so gather the meaning by himself. So that with him, it is nothing that saint Augustine saith 〈◊〉 Doct. Christ. libr. Chapter 6. where I received my 〈…〉 ule, Magnificè igitur & salubriter, etc. Magnificallye ●herefore and wholesomely, the holy Ghost hath so 〈…〉 empered the holy scriptures, that with open places, he ●ight satisfy hunger, with dark places he might wipe ●ff loathsomeness: for nothing in a manner is brought ●ut of those obscurities, which may not be found in ●ome other place most plainly spoken. It is nothing ●hat I require the holy ghost the author of the scriptures, by earnest prayer to be obtained of the interpreters. But if diligence may do so much, he tel●●th us of the great diligence used in the Pope's semi●arie, for England, under the government of Doctor Allen (which proveth itself to be a semi●arie of treason) in much reading and conferring of the scriptures, with all other helps and means, whereby they must be more certain of truth than we, by mine own rule. No, Bristol, not they that read the scriptures with such mind as you do (without the extraordinary grace of God) shall never come to the knowledge of the truth, which they seek not in them, but the confirmation of their prejudicated, erroneous, and heretical opinions.  
There is a fragment of Clemens cited in the decrees. Dist. 37. Chapter Relatum, which showeth the let of your understanding, and in the end concludeth, Non enim sensi 〈…〉, etc. you ought not to seek a foreign and strange sense, without the scriptures, that you may by any means confirm the same by the authority of the scriptures, but you ought to take the sense of truth out of the scriptures themselves. Concerning the brag of Hebrew and Greek texts, to be proved against us, when we see the book, we will show you our judgement. In the mean time if the author show not more wit in suppressing his labour, than you in vaunting of it before it come forth, I assure you he will show himself to the world to have neither learning wisdom, nor honesty.   

The 3. part.  
What he meaneth by his only scripture: and that thereby he excepteth also against scripture. 
Bristol.   
I mean by only scripture, what soever is taught in plain words, or may be gathered by necessary conclusion, 
Fulke.  which is as good as express words. For all truth needful for us to know (say I) may be proved by scripture, either in plain words or by necessary conclusion, which is all one. Where I urge Allen to show some sentence of scripture to maintain prayer and sacrifice for the dead, Bristol saith, I confessed that I have heard of him diverse sentences in the third chapter of his reply pag. 19 but read that page who will, and thèy shall find never a word of such confession. The scripture itself, that I except against by calling for Canonical scripture, is the book of Maccabees, which he promiseth to prove to be canonical in the 11. Chapter where his arguments shall receive answers.   

The 4. part.  
What great promises he maketh to bring most evident scriptures against us, and also by scripture to prove his sense of the 
Bristol.  scripture: Triumphing also before the victory, and saying that 〈…〉 dare not be tried by scripture, but reject the Scriptures, where 〈…〉 n a fourfold offer is made unto him.  
Before he rehearse my words of promise, he repeateth 
Fulke.  〈…〉 w precise he hath showed me: first to admit no evi 〈…〉 nce that they allege, but scripture only, both in all 〈…〉 ntroversies and also in the exposition of scripture: 〈…〉 at evidence I admit, and how far, hath been show 〈…〉 before, & more at large in my answer to his motives 〈…〉 d demands. Secondly he saith, I admit no scripture, 〈…〉 ich maketh so plainly with them, that I cannot avoid but by denying it to be canonical, though I grant 〈…〉 o have the confirmation of the same true Church, which 〈…〉 oveth me, as the holy ghost, to receive the other scrip 〈…〉 res for canonical. This he speaketh for the Maccabees 〈…〉 oak, which although I deny to be canonical, yet I 〈…〉 ver granted to have the confirmation of the true 〈…〉 urch, neither yet ever had it: again where he saith, 〈…〉 e true Church moveth me, as the holy ghost, to re〈…〉 we the other scriptures for canonical, he doth me 〈…〉 onge for the Church moveth not me as the holy ghost, 〈…〉 t in a much inferior degree of moving: the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 the author moveth me, the true Church as a wit 〈…〉sse.  
Thirdly he saith, I admit no scripture which I con 〈…〉sse to be canonical, unless it make so expressly, so plainly, so manifestly, & so necessarily with them, that it cannot by any subtlety be avoided. This proposition being in the copulative is false, for I admit arguments, taken either out of the express and plain words of scripture, or of collection necessarily concluding. Let him make a new logic, if he will have me admit arguments that do not conclude necessarily.  
How I observe that law that I so rigorously exact, 〈…〉 e will examine in the next Chapter. Then followeth a large rehearsal of sentences wherein I affirm, ●hat by the grace of God, I am able to prove every arti 〈…〉 e of faith that we hold against the papists, by ne 〈…〉 essarie argu 〈…〉 ents out of the scriptures. Bristol saith in the next chapter, I shall have enough, yet if 〈◊〉 will, one article shall be this. That Antichrist is not one certain person: That I shall easily prove thus: One certain person is not many Antichrists, there ha●● been many: therefore antichrist is not one certain person. The minor is saint john. Epist. 1. Cap. 2. vers. 18. Again, Antichrist is he, whosoever denieth that jesus is Christ: One certain person only denieth not that jesus is Christ: Therefore Antich rist is not one certain person only, 1. johan. 2. vers. 22. Again, Every spirit that confesseth not jesus Christ to be come in the flesh, is the spirit of Antichrist: but this is not the spirit of one certain person: ergo Antichrist is not one certain person. The beast described apocalypse 13. and expounded apocalypse 17. is Antichrist, but many kings are the parts of that beast, therefore Antichrist is no one certain person. The whore of Babylon which is expounded Apoc. 17. to be the city of Rome, is borne by the beast beforesaid which is Antichrist, but the city of Rome is not borne by one certain person, therefore Antichrist is no one certain person.  
another article that he requireth me to prove is: That the Churches flying into the wilderness, at the coming of Antichrist, is to become invisible to the world: Although this article be not a matter of faith, in controversy between us, neither yet so affirmed of me, as though to be in the wilderness, were nothing else, but to be invisible to the world: yet I will prove so much as I affirmed, that the Church being in the wilderness, is invisible to the world. The Church being where the multitude of wicked men are not, is to them invisible: But the multitude of wicked men are not in the wilderness: Therefore the Church being in the wilderness is to the multitude of wicked men which is the world, invisible.  
Thirdly he requireth me to prove that the beginning of that coming and flying should be so soon after Christ's passion. Before I prove this, it were reason you should tell how soon you mean, or I said, such 〈…〉 mming and fleeing should be. And the like I say 〈…〉 the continuance of so many ages and the end so 〈…〉 g before Christ's second coming. The holy 〈…〉 oft declareth Apoc. 12. ver. 5. that immediately after 〈…〉 rist was taken up to God and his throne, the woman 〈…〉 hich is the Church, being persecuted by the dragon 〈…〉 d into the wilderness. The time of continuance is 〈…〉 uratively & obscurely described by days, months, 〈…〉 d years, and generally by a time, times, and half a 〈…〉 e, which I never took upon me to define how 〈…〉ng they should be, in account of our years, nor when 〈…〉 coming of Christ should be.  
After this he saith, I triumph in lying, when I of 〈…〉 me the Papists dare not abide the trial of only 〈…〉 ipture, whereas he laboureth nothing so much in all 〈…〉 is Chapter, as to prove, that the trial of true do 〈…〉 in ought not to be only by scripture. And 〈…〉 terwarde he saith plainly, they refuse the trial 〈…〉 only scriptures, but not by scriptures, no more 〈…〉 eu they refuse faith, because they refuse only faith. 〈…〉 here he noteth me for foisting in the word one 〈…〉, in the minor of this argument. The spouse of 〈…〉 hrist heareth the voice of Christ and is ruled there 〈…〉 y: But the romish Church will in no wise be 〈…〉 led only by the voice of Christ: therefore she is 〈…〉 ot of the spouse of Christ. I thought every reasonable 〈…〉 le man would have understood, only, in the maior 〈…〉 so, seeing she is no honest spouse that will be ruled 〈…〉 y the voice of an other man then her husband, or 〈…〉 hat will be ruled by herself, or take upon 〈…〉 o to overrule her husband, I added also in the 〈…〉 inor, which Bristol omitteth, that the Romish church 〈…〉 goeth a whoring after her own inventions, and come 〈…〉 mitteth gross idolatry. Ar. 99  
Where I charge the Popish Church with blasphemy, for submitting God's word to her own judgement: 〈…〉 he answereth it is all one as if I should say, the Apostles did blasphemously submit the scripture to the own will, b● cause they took upon them to judge of the true s 〈…〉 and because S. Peter said the unlearned, being hi● self a fisherman, and unstable, did misconstrue S. Pau● epistles &c. to their own damnation: which is all 〈◊〉 as if Bristol could make us believe, that the Ap● stle took upon them without the spirit of God, 〈◊〉 contrary to the scriptures in other places, to judge 〈◊〉 sense of any scripture, as the Popish Church doth: 〈◊〉 that Saint Peter, being an Apostle endued with so m● ny graces, was unlearned, because he had been a 〈◊〉 sherman.  
Again where I said, the Popish Church ma 〈…〉 fest rejecteth the whole authority of all the Cano 〈…〉 call scriptures, when she affirmeth that no book 〈◊〉 holy scripture is Canonical, but so far forth as sh〈…〉 will allow it: This saith Bristol, is as though 〈◊〉 Apostles and the Church after them, manifestly rejected the whole &c: because they made a Canon or Canon's, whereof the said scriptures were and are call 〈…〉 Canonical, whereupon himself also counteth th' 〈…〉 as confirmed by the holy Ghost. That the scriptu 〈…〉 are called Canonical of such a Canon it is not yet proved, for they may be called the Canon and Canonical, because they are the certain rule to direct 〈◊〉 matters of religion. But admit the Apostles or 〈◊〉 Church immediately after them, in having the spir 〈…〉 of discretion, made such a Canon to discern true a●d divine books from false and conterfeite books or written by the spirit of man, what is this like to that bl〈…〉 phemous authority which the Popish Church challengeth? that she gave authority to the scriptures and might as well have received the Gospel of bartholomew as of Matthew, of Thomas as of john &c: whereby it followeth, that by the like power she may now reject the Gospels of matthew and john, and receive the Gospels of Bartholomew and Thomas.  
Where I said, the popish Bishops durst not abide the conference at Westminster, first he quarelleth 〈…〉 my phrase, because I said it was before the whole 〈…〉 rlde, as one that care not what I say. In deed I 〈…〉 de account of the judgement of reasonable rea 〈…〉 s which would not take my words as though I 〈…〉 〈…〉nt that all the whole world was gathered into 〈…〉 estminster Church: but that the conference and dis 〈…〉 tation was so open and so notorious that all the world 〈…〉ght have knowledge of it.  
Secondly he calleth it a mock conference, in come 〈…〉 rison of the council of Trent, yet was there no or 〈…〉 r taken, but such as was well liked of by the Papists 〈…〉 m selves, until they saw their cause could carry no 〈…〉 dite.  
He chargeth us for refusing to come to the council 〈◊〉 Trent, being so solemnly & honourably invited, with 〈…〉 h safeconductes etc. To your safeconductes I answer briefly the council of Constance hath discredited 〈…〉 m for ever on your behalfs. And to your disputati 〈…〉 there offered, I say it was to no purpose, in such a 〈…〉 cke council, where the Pope which is the princi 〈…〉 ll party that is accused of heresy, shall be the only 〈…〉 dge and disposer of all things passed therein against 〈◊〉 good examples, laws, equity and reason.  
Where you make Allen such a great exhibitioner 〈◊〉 our whole country, I will not quarrel at your phrase, 〈…〉 t I marvel what great revenues he hath in Flaun 〈…〉 rs that he receiveth no exhibition as you say from any body.  
But now to the fourfold offer: wherein first you say, that the council of Trent counted us subjects 〈◊〉 much as we count you the subjects of England. ●e count you as you show yourselves to be, errant waiters to England and the most godly prince of the 〈…〉 me, our sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth: as for 〈…〉 e conventicle of Trent, we own no more subjection 〈…〉 to it, them to the city of Louvain.  
The first offer is, that we must proeure a safecon 〈…〉 uct for you from the Court in such form as the coun 〈…〉 ll gave us, and some of you will come over and join with us in any conference that shall be prescribed, according to the common laws of a conference, 〈◊〉 there you refer me to your 19 and 1. demand, whereto I have made answer already. But as concerning you 〈…〉 request, that we should procure safeconduct for you 〈…〉 it is altogether unreasonable, because you are not on 〈…〉 heretics, but also rebels, conspirators and traitors, to whom no wise state will grant safeco●ducte.  
Your second offer, is that I should join wi〈…〉 you upon Collatio Carthaginensis, touching whic 〈…〉 you have mine answer in my Retentive against yo 〈…〉 morives.  
Your slanderous and shameless complaint, of o 〈…〉 bishops and commissioners oppressing papists with heavy irons, & butcher's axes, the whole world (if you w 〈…〉 give me leave to speak so) may know to be false. Their greatest severity is lenity, if it be compared with popish tyrannic, practised by your Bishops and bu●ning butchers in Queen Mary's time.  
Your third offer is, that I should send you so●● of my fellows or scholars (it is well you require n 〈…〉 me to come myself) which shall need no other sa●●conduct, but their quiet and modest behaviour: as the example of some fugitives hath proved, all satisfied by your conference, and seeing and hearing your daily reading and examination of the scirptures: I answer, if you could procure as good a safecondicte 〈◊〉 Sygismond the Emperor gave to john Hus & Hiero● of prague, I durst not adventure to send them (if h 〈…〉 any fellows or scholars whom I might send) into the hands of Papists and traitors: much less dare I send or exhort any, to go upon your credit without safe-conduct.  
Your fourth offer is, to answer such scriptures as I have alleged in both my books, in the next chapter, whereto you shall by the grace of God receive a reply without any long delay.  
Your translation of the bible that you make some 〈…〉 omise of, when it cometh forth, we shall con 〈…〉 o of it. But where you say, We have served our 〈…〉 ntrie with the old Testament of the late obstinate jews 〈…〉 welling, dividing, and reading, it being itself but one verse 〈◊〉 the whole Psalter, and each other particular book, and only 〈…〉 sonantes, and to be rcade according to the tradition of the 〈…〉 thfull, which tradition you know by your authentical tran 〈…〉tions, and not of the incredulous and perfidious etc. you 〈…〉 rite both like an ignorant ass, and like an impudent 〈…〉 asphemer. For first where you say, the vowelling, diui〈…〉ng, & reading is of the late obstinate jews: you declare 〈…〉 neither you have seen nor read the ancient comen 〈…〉 rises of the jews that are extant, in which this vowel 〈…〉ng, dividing, and reading is contained, nor once have 〈…〉 ard of the most ancient travel of the Mazorites 〈…〉 hich soon after the dispertion of the jews, with won 〈…〉 rful care and diligence, almost unto superstition have 〈…〉 gistred the vowelling, dividing, and reading, as it 〈…〉 as then received, even from the patriarchs and Pro 〈…〉 etes, of every verse and word in the old Testa 〈…〉 ent: in so much that if any letter or point by the 〈…〉 ult of the writer in the copies which they used were 〈…〉 ch as might easily be corrected by the Grammar, yet 〈…〉 ey durst not amend it, but have even so commended 〈◊〉 unto us, as if there be any learned in that tongue, of ●hich you make some brags, they are able to make report unto you. Again, what a monstuous thing is this, that there should be but one verse or sentence in the whole Psalter, and in each book without my distinction or division: you might as well say there is but one word in every book. Again where you say there be only 〈…〉 onsonantes, although they that be exercised in the He●rewe tongue, and in the grammar thereof, can read without the vowelling points, yet they cannot always ●aue certainty, seeing some words with diverse points, 〈…〉 oe not only signify diverse things, but some 〈…〉 imes also contrary things. How then could eve 〈…〉 ie godly man, exercise himself day and night in the 〈…〉 tudie of God's law, according to his commandment, when it were not possible for one among an hundredth, to read it without points and distinctions of sentences. Our saviour Christ in affirming that not so much 〈◊〉 one jot or point of the law shall perish, doth sufficiently declare, that the law of God had vowelling & dividing points as well as letters consonants. As for your authentical translations you prate of, we know that in m●ny places, they err not only by missing the vowel 〈…〉, but also by perverting the consonantes. And if it b 〈…〉 so as you threaten in the second part of this Chapter, that one of your side shall shortly set forth a book, to show to the world, that the Hebrew and greeks texts, in nothing make for us, against you, and in very many things make for you against us, much mo●e plainly then your vulgar latin text, we have not served our country amiss in translation of the old Testament according to the Hebrew which maketh more for you then your own vulgar latin, & so much as you say against us.  
But now to all your four offers, I will oppose one more reasonable, more easy, more indifferent, which without danger, without suit, without fraud, me thinks in equity, you may not refuse. And that is such as I made concerning mine answers unto your popish treatises, prefixed before my Retentive against your motives, that if you will conclude any controversy of religion that is between us, in the strict form of Logical arguments (which is the best trial of truth in matters of doubt) I will answer you as briefly, and either show plainly the inconsequens of your argument, or else by sufficient authority or conclusion of syllogism, advouch the contradiction of your mayor or minor, or both, if they both happen to be false. In the mean time if you had rather be respondent then opponent, there is a little treatise called Syllogisticon that hath been set forth by Master Fox almost twenty years ago against transubstantiation and the carnal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament of his supper, if your stomach serve you, you may endeavour 〈…〉 ourself to answer that challenge.    

CAP. VIII.  
To show his vanity in his foresaid rigorous exacting of 
Bristol.  〈…〉 ayne scripture, and great promises to bring plain scripture, 〈…〉 nferring place with place so evidently. All the scriptures that he 〈…〉 ledgeth are examined and answered. And first concerning the 〈…〉 estion of only scripture.  
First Bristol (as his common manner is) slandereth 
Fulke.  〈…〉 e to affirm, that in all matters only evident scripture 〈…〉 ust be brought and heard: which I never affirmed, but 〈…〉 at only scripture is sufficient and of sovereign au 〈…〉 oritie to teach us all doctrine pertaining to religion 〈…〉 d manners, to faith and good works. Whatsoever 〈…〉 erefore is brought and heard, must be examined by 〈…〉 at touchstone, if it be received of Christians. Secondly 〈…〉 e slandereth me to confess, that all other evidences 〈…〉 e evident for them, which is an impudent lie, for I ne 〈…〉 r made any such confession. Thus having altered the 〈…〉 ate of the controversy, from that I affirm, to that which 〈◊〉 falsely saith men to affirm, he taketh upon him to an 〈…〉 ere all such scriptures as I have alleged to prove, that 〈◊〉 all matters, only scripture must be brought & heard. 〈…〉 and first he quarelleth, that in all mine answer to the arti 〈…〉 es, I have cited but one text of scripture, for that pur 〈…〉 se. Where he might more truly say. I had cited none: 〈…〉 r this question of only scriptures authority & sufficiency, was none of the demands whereunto I made answer. Only in the 4. article & 1. demand, which demandeth what church hath vanquished all heresies in times past, etc. I answer, the true catholic Church, hath always resisted all 〈…〉 lse opinions contrary to the word of god, & fought against them with 〈…〉 e sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, and by the aid 〈◊〉 God obtained the victory and triumphed ever them So did Paul 〈…〉 ercome the jews, Act. 18. So did the fathers of the primitive 〈…〉 urch from time to time confute heresies by the scriptures, and in 〈…〉 eir writing declare that by them they are to be confuted etc. To 〈…〉 is Bristol answereth, that he findeth not that his arguments 〈…〉 'gainst the jews were none but scriptures, wherein he is 〈◊〉 be patdoned, because the quotation is a miss, and hath Act. 18. for 28. in which chapter & 23. ver. S. Luke declareth how he proved the whole doctrine of the gospel out of the law of Moses & the Prophets. Wherefore if Bristol had remembered this, he might have found that S. Paul's arguments, were the same against the jews of Corinth, which he used against the jews of Rome. For what other authority should be used against than, that denied Christ, & believe not his Epistles, but the authority of the scripture, which they received? Wherefore he used none other arguments, but taken from the authority of the scriptures. Also he might find in the same chapter, & last verse, that Apollo● (who used the same arguments that S. Paul did) proved by the scriptures, that jesus was Christ. If he will cavil, that it is not said, only by scriptures, let him accuse S. Luke, which hath omitted other arguments, necessary to prove jesus to be Christ. But read you Act. 13. (saith Brist.) and you shall find that he used against the jews, the testimony of certain men, namely of john the Baptist & of his own disciples. This is as good an argument, to prove that he confuted them not by the only authority of God's word contained in the scriptures, as if a man would deny, that a traitor was apprehended by the only authority of the Prince, because the constable arrested him & the justice made his warrant to the jailer to receive him. john the Baptist testified nothing of Christ, but that which was written of him before in the scripture, no more did the disciples or Apostles of Christ. Beside that the testimony of the Apostles is not alleged for proof of any doctrine concerning Christ, but only for witness of a fact, namely that jesus was risen again from the dead, according to the scriptures. Furthermore Bristol willeth ●e to read Act. 4. for the argument of miracles, where it is said, seeing the man also stand with Peter & john, which was healed: The governors had nothing to gainsay. A man having such daily exercise of conferring of scripture, as Bristol boasteth himself to have, might have alleged twenty places more proper for the argument of miracles. But even in the same place by him cited, the argument of miracles serveth not to prove any article of doctrine, not contained in the scriptures, but to 〈…〉 onfirme the doctrine of the scriptures which was alleged by the Apostles, to prove jesus to be Christ.  
The second text of scripture is, in the book of Pur. 6. where I say, that other persuasion than such as is grounded upon hearing of God's word, will never of Christians be counted for true belief, so long as the 10. cap. to the R●m. remaineth in the Canon of the Bible. To this Bristol answereth, that the word of God is not only in writing, but in preaching, of such as be sent. And therefore we account it the word of God, which we hear of the Church of God, either in her counsels, or in her doctors, or any other. For so said God to the, he that heareth you, heareth me. I answer that I spoke not of the word of God only in writing, but in preaching, in counsels or doctors, or howsocuer it be the word of God, but I say, the only scriptures are a sufficient warrant for me & every Christian to try what is the word of God, & what is the word of man. For he that commanded us to hear the Apostles & ministers, willeth us not to believe any doctrine which they teach, if they have not the warrant of holy scripture to prove unto us, that it is the doctrine of God. For since god gave his word in writing, all spirits & prophets, signs & miracles were to be tried thereby. Deut. 13.  
The third text Gal. 1. which S. Paul spéaketh of preaching, Bristol saith I allege it of writing, & of only writing. In these words: Pur. 449. It vexeth you at the very heart, that we require the authority of holy scriptures to confirm your doctrine, having a plain commandment out of the word of God, that if any man teach otherwise than the word of God alloweth, he is accursed? First he chargeth me with falsification by changing. But what change I have made, let the Lord God judge. Indeed I have drawn mine argument from the word of God, to the holy scriptures, because they are the only certain assurance of the word of God. For how can I know certainly what S. Paul preached to the Romans, and other Churches, but by the scriptures, both of the old testament and the new, which he affirmeth to be able to make a man wise unto salvation 2. Tim. 3? yea wherefore was the new Testament written, but to assure us, what is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles?  
Therefore accursed be he, that saith the new Testiment is unperfect, and doth not contain in writing all points of the Gospel, that Christians are bound to believe to their salvation. But the scripture saith not, that the Apostles did write all that they taught, saith Bristol: yes verily, and that I prove by this argument. The scripture testifieth, that all which the Apostles taught, was first taught of Christ himself before them, Heb. 2. but whatsoever Christ taught, is written in the Gospel, Luk. 1. Act. 5. john. 20. etc. therefore whatsoever the Apostles taught, is written. And therefore the Church pretending the Apostles tradition, received by preaching, i● bound to bring forth the Apostles writing or other holy scriptures, given by the same spirit. The fourth text i● 2. Tim. 3. which I allege in these words (saith Bristol) Purg. 410. All good-works are taught by the scriptures: which are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good works. First he taketh exception, that these are not the words of S. Paul. Indeed my words are an argument against prayers for the dead grounded upon the scripture which Bristol suppresseth: But supposing that Saint Paul had said so, what a fond reasoning is this (saith Bristo●) because one evidence proveth all, therefore I can not have any other evidence, but that only? Sir, if one evidence prove all, that which is not proved by that evidence, is not proved at all. But if to prove that which is proved already, by that one evidence, you have other good evidence, no man letteth you to use them. Wherefore this is no fond kind of reasoning (Master Br●stow) but such as the best Logicians do teach. All good works are taught by the scriptures: therefore that which is not taught by the scriptures, is no good work. But now S. Paul saith not, that all good works are taught by the scripture, saith Bristol. He saith the scriptures are profitable, he saith not, are able or sufficient to teach all good works. Again he speaketh only of the work of an Evangelist, and not of all good works. To this I answer that immediately before Paul said, The scriptures are able to make Timothy wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ jesus: but no man can be wise unto salvation, but he that knoweth all good works meet for a Christian man to do: therefore all good works meet for a Christian man to do, may be learned by the scripture. And even in this very text, where he saith, All the scripture inspired of God is profitable to teaching of truth, to disproving of falsehood, to correcting of vices, to instructing in righteousness, that the man of God that is the Evangelist, be perfect, furnished to every good work▪ although you restrain every work to the only work of an Evangelist, yet that I said, is necessarily concluded thereof. For it is some part of an Evangelists work to give example in all good works, that are meet to be done by other men: but by the scripture he may be perfectly furnished etc. therefore all good works are taught by the scripture. Again, when all the office of an Evangelist, which consisteth in teaching, disputing, correcting, instructing in righteousness, may be perfectly furnished at the scriptures: what can be more plain to prove, that nothing ought to be taught for truth, disproved for error, corrected for vice, instructed for righteousness, but that which is taught, disproved, corrected, instructed out of the holy scriptures? Seeing therefore, that prayers and oblations are to be made for the dead, is not taught by the scripture, it is no truth. To deny prayer to be profitable for the dead, is not disproved by the scripture, therefore it is no error. To omit prayer for the dead is not corrected in the scripture, therefore it is no vice. Men are not instructed in the scripture to pray for the dead, therefore it is no work of righteousness.  
The 5. & 6. texts, I allege together Pur. 434. Search the Scriptures, and try the spirits, to prove that the certainty of truth in understanding the Scriptures, is not to be had but by the spirit, and the spirits are not tried but by the Scriptures. Against this conference Bristol saith, Who ever alleged Scripture more blindly? And why so I pray you? because Christ saith in the same place, that john did bear witness to the truth. My works do bear witness of me: Also, My father who hath sent me, he hath given witness of me. In dèed, 〈◊〉 Bristol could prove, that john Baptist, Christ's miracles, or God his father, did testify any thing of him, which was not before contained in the Scriptures, neither had Christ given a perfect rule to find him in the scriptures, neither is that sentence able to prove that Christ may be sufficiently learned out of the holy Scripture. But if the testimony of john, of the works of God the father, do all confirm the Scriptures, who ever alleged scripture more blindly than Bristol, to prove that Christ may not be learned sufficiently out of the new Testament, & the old, when Christ sendeth the jews to the old Testament, as a sufficient witness of him?  
Concerning the trial of spirits, Bristol biddeth me look in the text: by this we know a spirit of truth & a spirit of error namely by hearing or not hearing of the Apostles. I like it very well. For where shall we hear the Apostles speaking, but in their writings & in the other holy writings, according to which they spoke all, that they taught. Wherefore here is no trial of the spirits, but by the scriptures. And where he sayeth the Romans do most manifestly continue in that they heard of the Apostles, because no man can name that time, the novelty, the seducer, that they went after, although it were true, that no man could in any point show (as he sayeth) yet the argument is nought, seeing it is proved by the Apostles writings, that they hold many things, not only beside, but also contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles.  
The 7. text i●, Pur. 285. The word of the Lord is a light unto our steps, and a lantern unto our fear, therefore we will not walk in the darkness of man● traditions. The faithful testimony of God's word, only giveth true light unto the eyes. But the Prophet (sayeth Bristol) neither hath the word only, nor saith that God's word, is not but in writing, for S. Paul referreth that text to the preaching of the Apostles. To the fi●st quarrel, I answer, that I allege not the words of the Prophet, but his meaning, which Bristol cannot deny to be the only word of God that giveth 〈…〉 we light to the eyes. That God's word is not but in 〈…〉 riting, I never said or thought: but that there is no 〈…〉 erteintie of God's word, but in the Scripture, I affirm: 〈…〉 and that the Apostles preached nothing but that which 〈…〉 as before contained (though not so clearly) in the law 〈…〉 and the Prophets.  
Last of all, you allege and say against judas Ma 〈…〉 abaeus, saith Bristol, Pur. 210. In the law not so much ●s one pin of the tabernacle was omitted, lest any ●hing might be left to the will of man to devise in the worship of God. You shall not do, saith the Lord, what seemeth good in your own eyes, but that which I command you, that only shall you do without adding any thing to it, or taking any thing away from it. After a fond quarrel of the quotation omitted by the printer, and his conjecture thereupon: Moses sayeth not (saith Bristol) That only which I do write, but that only which I command. And so our saviour Christ commandeth the jews accordingly. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair: and therefore whatsoever they command you, observe it. I ask no better, we must observe that only which God commandeth, whether Moses or any other of the Prophets, apostles, or Evangelists have written it, whether the Scribes or Pharisees, pastors or teachers do preach it. But where shall we find that which God hath commanded? but in the law & the prophets, in the writings of the apostles & evangelists, which are able to make us wise to salvation, which are profitable to make that man of god perfect, prepared to all good works.  
As for the pings saith Bristol, you may see in the doctors, they were not for that cause you imagine, of leaving nothing to man's devise in that worship of God. For how say you then by David & Solomon, who changed not only a pin, but all the pings & the whole tabernacle into the temple, & ordained musical instruments, and many other things for the worship of God, that the law did not mention. I answer, whatsoever David and Solomon changed and ordained, they did not by the devise of man, but by revelation from God, who had ordained them to do it. But mine error is (sayeth Bristol) because I do not distinguish between men that have only their own humane spirits, and men that have the spirit of God, as Moses, the Prophe●● and Apostles, and the catholic Church. I were in deed● in a gross error, if I could not distinguish the spirit of God from the spirit of man. But Bristol erreth because he confoundeth men that were specially chosen, to receive the word of God by revelation, and the same to preach and write, as the Prophets and Apostles: with the Church, which consisteth of men having the spirit of adoption: but for the certainty of truth, builded upon the foundation of the Prophets & Apostles, or else erring if they depart from that foundation.  
The digression he maketh to the unlearned brother, because I know not the treatise against which he writeth, I omit. But where he returneth to admonish me, his fellow Fulke, as he calleth me, to look better to my Logic, concerning mine argument ab authoritate negative, I do him to wit, that, God I thank, I am not to learn Logic, nor the force of an argument of authority negatively, of him. The argument that angreth him, is this: All true doctrine is taught in the Scriptures: Purgatory is not taught in the scriptures: therefore Purgatory is no true doctrine. Here are two faults sayeth Bristol, one because the mayor is false, the other supposing the mayor were true, yet cannot the argument be opposed to our arguments of traditions, counsels, fathers. I will first prove the mayor. That whereby the man of God may be made perfect, furnished to all good works, is taught in the Scriptures. 2. Tim. 3. All true doctrine is that whereby the man of God may be made perfect, prepared to all good works: Therefore all true doctrine●s taught by the scriptures.  
Again: That which is able to make a man wise to salvation, teacheth all true doctrine needful to salvation (for of other truths we speak not) but the scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation: ergo 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth all true doctrine. And concer 〈…〉 g the second fault, which supposeth the mayor & mi 〈…〉 were true, yet denieth the argument. I would 〈…〉sh you fellow Bristol to look better to your 〈…〉 gike, how an argument that is true in matter and 〈…〉 rme, may not be opposed against you. But you 〈…〉ing a witty example, if you prove a doctrine unto 〈…〉 c● out of the old testament, and I oppose thereunto 〈…〉 y negative argument, and say: All true doctrine 〈…〉 aught in the new Testament, that doctrine is not 〈…〉ght in the new testament, therefore that doctrine 〈…〉 o true doctrine. You ask me, whether this be well 〈…〉 posed of me. I answer, no: neither would I ever 〈…〉 pose such an argument against you, which though it 〈◊〉 true in form, yet it is manifestly false in matter.  
〈…〉 r if you suppose the mayor to be true (as you say that 〈…〉 old it, and must hold it especially if you say so) then 〈…〉 he minor utterly false: for than no doctrine is taught 〈◊〉 the old testament, but the same is taught also in 〈◊〉 new Testament. Wherefore this example proveth 〈…〉 t, but that mine argument ab authoritate negatiuè is 〈…〉 ghtly opposed against traditions, counsels, fathers, & 〈…〉 ch like, as avouch any doctrine for true, which is not 〈…〉ght in the Scriptures, in which all truth is taught.  

The second part.  
Of Scriptures alleged concerning the question of the Church, ●●d first, what he allegeth indefinitely, that the Church may 
Bristol  〈…〉re.  
The first text cited Ar. 86. Every man is a liar, ●herfore the whole Church militant consisting of men, 
Fulke.  ●hich are all liars, may err altogether.  
Against this, Bristol asketh: Why I do not say 〈…〉 e Church triumphant: And demandeth whether 〈…〉 at also do not consist of men: I answer, the scrip 〈…〉re Psalm. 116. speaketh of men living in this world, 〈…〉 d such as are mere men, lest he should cavil at our 〈…〉 viour Christ, which is a man, and yet not contained in this general rule. As for the members of the triumphant Church, whether they may properly be c●lled men, I will not dispute, but we speak as the scripture speaketh of men on earth, and the Church oh 〈…〉 ●arth. And therefore although it be true, that som● men by the gift of God are veraces, true: yet near which may not err. And therefore the absurdi 〈…〉 which I gather, Purg. 451. God only is not true, if 〈◊〉 Pope cannot err, is not avoided by saying the Apostles cannot err. For undoubtedly the Apostles did err. That their preachings and writings were not erroneous, it was because they were not theirs, but the inditing of the holy ghost by them. But that the holy ghost speaketh not so by the Pope, it is manifest by this, that he hath spoken contrary to the spirit of God in the Scriptures, not only in matters of controversy between him and us, but also in heresies condemned by both parts.  
The 2. text is Ar. 88 where I say: The true & only Church of God, hath no such privilege granted, but that she may be deceived in some things: for her knowledge is unperfect, & her prophesying is unperfect. Bristol replieth, that S. Paul in that speech includeth himself: Our knowledge & our prophesying etc. is unperfect, whether we speak or write. And saith, that he troweth I will not say, that S. Paul might be deceived in his writings & epistles: & no more may the Church be, I answer if S. Paul had proceeded further in prophesying, then according to such knowledge as he had by revelation, & argumentation out of the scriptures, he might have erred. That he did not err in his writings, it was not because it was impossible for him to err, but because he did write nothing but that he had, either by revelation of jesus Christ's spirit, or by argumentation out of the holy scriptures. And therefore, except the church have such warrant, as the Apostles & elders had by revelation & the Scriptures Act. 15. she cannot truly say, It hath been thought good to the holy ghost & us.  
The 3. text is Ar. 88 where I say. It is true that S. 〈…〉 gustines saith, even the whole Church is taught to say 〈…〉 ry day, Forgive us our trespasses. But why so (saith 〈…〉 stow) because the whole Church doth err in her de 〈…〉 minations every day? It were ridiculous so to say. 〈…〉 t Augustine speak for us both. Propter quasdam igno 〈…〉 tias & infirmitates membrorum suorum, for certain ig 〈…〉 rances and infirmities of her members. The whole 〈…〉 urch for the ignorance of her members must say, for 〈…〉 we us our debts: but the whole Church need not say 〈◊〉, except she may be deceived through the ignorance of 〈…〉 r members: therefore the whole church may be decei 〈…〉 d, Apostles and all: which did not err in their writings 〈…〉 d determinations, because it was impossible for them 〈◊〉 to do, whatsoever they had written or determined, 〈…〉 t because in their writings and determinations, they 〈…〉 ere directed by such revelation, as they had according 〈◊〉 the holy scriptures.  
The 4 text is, that the whole synagogue did err, but 〈…〉 ot the Church of Christ, and that but in a fact, not in 〈…〉 octrine, nor the whole synagogue, but a piece only. 〈…〉 hich was the example of David carrying the Ark of 〈…〉 odd upon a new Chariot, which should have been carry 〈…〉 d upon men's shoulders. 1. Chron. 13. So that there be no 〈…〉sse, than three walls saith Bristol between the Church 〈…〉 and your shot. But by the grace of God, I will show 〈…〉 hat they are all but paper walls, that are erected against the truth of ●od, to bind it to the persons or places of men. First (saith Bristol) it was the synagogue, and not the Church of Christ. Why Bristol, was not the Church of Christ, before Christ came into the flesh? at least remember that S. Paul writeth 1. Cor. 10. Al our fathers were baptized and communicated with the body and blood of Christ, or else find us some other way of salvation, then in the body of Christ, whose member whosoever is not, is sure of damnation: or say that the jews being the members of the body of Christ, were not the Church of Christ.  
The second wall, that this was a fact, and no doctrine, is soon blown down if we do consider, that the fact had never been attempted, but that it was though 〈…〉 lawful and Godly, which was an error in doctrine. The third wall is, That the whole synagogue erred no● For he did not consult with the priest, saith Bristol, w 〈…〉 with his Tribunes, Centurions & nobles, but only which 〈…〉 the lords temporal, & hereupon he noteth my be 〈…〉 lie blindness: but much rather may I note his m 〈…〉 strous and more than beastly impudence, where the 〈◊〉 according to his own vulgar translation addeth to th' 〈…〉 whom he nameth, Et ait ad omnem coe●um Israel. and 〈◊〉 the whole congregation of Israel. If it please you (quo● he) and if the motion be of God, let us send unto 〈◊〉 rest of our brethren in all the coasts of Israel, and 〈◊〉 the priests and Levites which dwell in the suburbs of the ci●ies. that they may be gathered unto us, etc. These (saith Bristol) were as you would say the hedge priests. Very well, ergo all the head priests were present. For otherwise how could it be a perfect congregation of Israel, where there wanted the principal members of the priests, and Levites, for their tribe and degree? And when he saith, let us send to the rest of our brethren, and those which he sent to of that degree were none, but 〈◊〉 it were hedge Priests, as Bristol affirmeth, who will doubt but the chief Priests were present, except he think they were not brethren unto the rest? But three months after, saith Bristol, having found out his error, he gathered not only all Israel ●●d jerusalem, but also the sons of Aaron, Sadoc and Abiathar, etc. 〈◊〉 though they were no part of Israel. But these (saith Bristol) he gathered as two Bishops, and six other, as it were Archdeacon's, and said unto them: You that are the heads of the levitical families, prepare yourselves with your brethren, and bring the Ark of our Lord God of Israel, to the place which is dressed for it: lest that as before, because you were not present, our Lord did sm●te us, so now also it happen for our unlawful doing. The words that Bristol taketh hold off in his vulgar translation, are that these principal priests and Levites were not present, which as before it is proved 〈…〉 e, so are they not in the Hebrew text LO ATT●M, No● 〈…〉 the verb is understood, which is in the sentence before: 〈…〉 t omitted, which now they were commanded to do, 〈…〉 t is, to carry the Ark: So the sense is, because you did 〈◊〉 carry it, and not, because you were absent. For beside 〈…〉 t hath been said before, of all the chief Priests in 〈…〉 nerall, how could it be said, that Aminadab one of 〈◊〉 six was absent, when the Ark was first brought 〈…〉 t of his house, who if he had not been deceived, should 〈…〉 we told the king of his error before?  
The 5. text is Ar. 86. where I say, the true and only 〈…〉 rch of Christ can never be void of God's spirit, and ye● she● 〈…〉 y err from the truth, and be deceived in some thinger: ●uen 〈…〉 there is no true Christian man that is void of God's spirit, ye● 〈…〉 y every true Christian err, etc. This my sophism (saith 〈…〉 istowe) consisteth in speaking confusely of Gods spi 〈…〉 e, as though the gift of it were one, in the whole church, 〈…〉 d in every particular true Christian man. But I say, 〈…〉 t, clean contrary to that he chargeth me, I distin distinguish of the gift of the spirit of God concerning adop 〈…〉 n, that is in every one of the faithful, by which he 〈◊〉 privileged from erring unto damnation: and the 〈…〉 rite of truth which is not given in such measure ei 〈…〉 r to the whole Church, or to every member, but that 〈…〉 ey may err in some things, though not finally in 〈…〉 atters necessary unto salvation. As for the promise, 〈…〉 ohn 14. ver. 16. of the comforter even the spirit of truth, to remain with us for ever, and to lead us into all truth: If the later be not restored to the Apostles, how can Bristol prove, that it must needs be understood of 〈…〉 e whole Church only, and not of every member s 〈…〉 g our saviour Christ, john 17. prayeth not only for 〈…〉 is Apostles, but for all and every one that should be 〈…〉 eve in him, through their preaching, that they might 〈…〉 e sanctified in the truth, which is the word of God. ●nd even in the very place cited, john 14. ver. 15. promiseth 〈…〉 he comforter the spirit of truth, to every one 〈…〉 hat believeth in him. And as he sent his spirit to lead 〈…〉 he Apostles into all truth, so his Apostles failed not to deliver that truth as well in writing as in preaching considering that the one is more subject to forgetful 〈…〉 and corruption than the other. Wherefore the Church 〈◊〉 called the pillar of truth. 1. Tim. 3. because it is buil 〈…〉 upon the foundation of the prophets and Apostles. Ep 〈…〉 2. which had the whole truth of the gospel revealed 〈◊〉 to them, not because the Church should have the spirit of truth, to reveal any truth unto her, which w 〈…〉 not revealed to the Apostles, and by them as well i● their writings, as in their preachings. So that the sa 〈…〉 gift of the spirit being in the whole Church, that is i● every member, and distinct from the gift of the spirit in such measure as the Apostles had it in their preaching and writing, the argument by me set down, is sound & no sophism at all.  
2 That the Church may be divorced.  
I never said that the true & Catholic church of Christ 
Bristol.  may be divorced from him, but the visible & particular 
●ulk●.  Church of some place, & time, as the prophet Esay complaineth that the church of jerusalem, by idolatry & superstition, had separated herself from Christ, & was refused of him, Esa. 1. How is the faithful city become an harlot? etc. And so may the prophet say to the church of Rome. Brist. asketh, whether the prophet do say so to Rome? yea ●erely. For the idolatry of Rome is nothing less, in this time than it was in his time of jerusalem. But I am too too ignorant (Bristol saith) in the scriptures, if I know not herein the difference between the synagogue of the jews and the Church of Christ, to wit that the synagogue with her jerusalem might & should be divorced, but the Church of Christ with her jerusalem (which is Rome saith Bristol) if you have any sight in the Acts of the Apostles should never, nor never might be divorced, etc. If mine ignorance be so great, why do you not with one text at the least help to teach me, that the visible Church of Christ since his incarnation, consisting of the Gentiles, may not as well be separated from him, as the Church of Christ before his incarnation, consisting of the jews? As for 〈◊〉 divorcement you imagine of all the whole on the 〈…〉 th', it never was ne shallbe. Again, that Rome is the 〈…〉 usalem of the Church of Christ, where find you in 〈…〉 c Acts of the Apostles, which have so good sight in 〈…〉 'em? I guess this is your argument: S. Luke beginneth 〈…〉 s stor●e at jerusalem, and endeth at Rome: ergo Rome the jerusalem of the Church of Christ. But when you 〈…〉 n prove the consequens of this argument, I will say as 〈…〉 ou say. In the mean time, I say there is small likely 〈…〉 odd that Rome should be the jerusalem of the Church 〈…〉 f Christ, seeing Peter being at Rome, is not once menti 〈…〉ed in all the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any other 〈…〉 ooke of holy scripture. But if you had as great sight 〈◊〉 the Epistle to the Galathians, as you imagine your 〈…〉 lfe to have in the Acts of the Apostles, there might 〈…〉 ou learn Cap. 4. that the jerusalem of the Church of ●hrist, is not Rome on earth, but jerusalem which is a 〈…〉 o●e, which is the mother of us all. As for the rejecting 〈…〉 f the jews, and calling of the Gentiles even until the 〈…〉 lnesse and the restoring of the jews, of which you pro 〈…〉 hecy without the book, that they shallbe all Christened in 〈…〉 e end of the world, are matters impertinent, to this que 〈…〉tion of the visible Church's divorcement.  
3 That even the Church of Christ should prepare the way 
Bristol.  〈…〉 o Antichrist.  
This, saith Bristol, is a strange imagination of him 
Fulk●.  and his fellows, It is the total sum of all their new divinity, yet no warrant at all they have for it out of the scripture.  
But I pray you Bristol, who ever said, that the Church of Christ prepared the way to Antichrist? I said Ar. 35. Many abuses entered into the Church of Christ immediately after the Apostles time: which the devil planted as a preparative for antichrist. Do I not here plainly say the devil planted them as a preparative? Again Ar. 38. I said, The scripture telleth us that the mystery of iniquity preparing for the general defection, and revelation of Antichrist wrought even in S. Paul's tim 〈…〉 2. Thessa. 2. First he quarreleth, that, general, is my wor● and not saint Paul's: I confess, but it is S. Paul's m 〈…〉ning, which speaketh not of a small or particular, but 〈◊〉 that great and general defection, which in other pa 〈…〉 of scripture is foreshowed to be from Christ unto Antichrist. Apoc. 13. & 17. and yet not so general, but th' 〈…〉 Christ shall have his Church still upon earth. Secondl● he demandeth whether the scripture tell me, that it wr●ug● in the Church of Christ: and answereth himself, no word● so. 〈◊〉 wrought in the persecutors etc. of the Church of Christ. And what scripture telleth you so? Is open persecution a myste●i● of iniquity? You say better in the seducers, and where began the seducers, but in the visible Church, although they be no members of the true and Catholic church That our heresy is the last, or next the last before the revelation, before you go about to show, as you promise, you must prove it to be an heresy, otherwise then the religion of Christ, was or the Infidels, jews, & Gentiles, called an heresy. 
That the Church of Christ is always a contemptible company. 
Bristol.    
I never said so, but after diverse authorities and reason's 
●●lke.  brought to show, how the world accounteth of the Church: I conclude Ar. 81. That as the Church in th● sight of God and his sancts, is most glorious and honourable, so in the sight of the world it hath always been most base and contemptible. To the scriptures I allege 1. Cor. 〈◊〉. Gal. 6. Ro. 1. that the cross, and Christ crucified thereon, which are all the glory of the Church, are condemned of the world, Bristol saith, that may be, and yet the Church not be in their sight a contemptible company, no more than the old Romans and Turks are to us, though we contemn their religion. I answer, I speak of the contempt of the Church, & not of the persons of men, which often times are great Emperors and princes of the world.  
To the place Matth. 10. You shall be hated of all men 〈…〉 r my names sake. Bristol inferreth the company that 〈◊〉 hated is not always contemptible. I confess, neither ●id I bring that text, but to show the perpetual hatred ●f the world against the Church. But Cyprian writeth, ●hat Decius was more patiented to hear that an Emperor 〈…〉 as set up against him, then that an other priest should ●e ordained at Rome in the place of Fabianus. This saith bristol, was not contempt, but of fear. Although I ●eny not, but tyrants fear the church of God, more than ●hey have cause in respect of their earthly kingdom: 〈…〉 t it followeth not, but they do also contemn it, and 〈…〉 ink their power greater and their glory superior vnt● it. And in the example of Decius, his indignation was ●he greater, because the base and contemptible company of the Church, as he esteemed them, durst choose an ●ther Bishop, after he had slain Fabianus, purposing to destroy the Church utterly.  
That I allege, 1. Cor. 1. Not many wise men, etc. He ●●yeth it was so in the beginning of the Church, but not always. And so I do blindly allege the text against ●y self: Because afterward the text saith, the wise themselves and the strong were confounded, that is to say converted. 〈◊〉 deed, if confusion and conversion be all one, it is ●●mewhat that you say: but how will the text bear, ●●at (beside the impropriety of the speech) that God hath 〈…〉 osen the foolish things of the world, that he might convert the wisemen; and the weak, that he might con●ert the strong? Last of all God hath chosen the inno 〈…〉 e and contemptible things of the world, and those ●hings which are not, that he might destroy those things ●at are. As you say, to confound, is to convert, so you here best say, to destroy is to save, or else you cannot ●●rooue the multitude of wise, noble, and honourable person's, that God hath chosen to be greater, than those ●hat are rejected. As for the texts of Esay 60. & 10. ●ited by you and me, speak of the spiritual glory of the Church, not delivering her from the contemptof the world, where and among whom she is a stranger. 
That the church was, and also should become inuisibl●.   
Concerning the invisiblenes of the church, Bristol 
Bristol  sayeth, I allege so as no sober man would: so that ●elike 
Fulke.  he will drive me to purge myself of drunkenness, as the Apostles were fain● to do●. Act 2. But what say 〈◊〉 not sounding of sobriety? One while, that the universal church of Christ, is not seen at all of men, because it is in heaven, Gal. 4. And here he asketh, if every member be not in heaven, as the Apostle faith, Our conversation is in heaven: Phil. 3. and Peter the Apostle w●● seen of all men. I answer, although men be seen i● earth, yet their conversation which is in heaven, is not seen; nor they themselves as they are in heaven with Christ which is our life, Col. 3. ver. 3. etc. So much mo●● the universal church, being a spiritual conjunction o● all the members unto Christ their head in heaven, is no● to be seen with bodily eyes upon earth.  
But another while I say, Ar. 80. it sufficeth, that the church be known to Christ the head; as he sayeth, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them; and to them that be the members of the same body. Here Bristol quarelleth with me: if your text import, that it sufficeth to be known to the head, why do you jumble in the members afterward? whether he be sober that vnderstande●● not a copulative proposition, let wise men judge. And yet the text proveth as well the sheep to know one another by hearing Christ's voice, as Christ knowing them by his divine election and providence. But B●●stowe so great a crafts man of good conclusions, d 〈…〉 death this consequence: Christ knoweth his sheep, 〈◊〉 the church (forsooth) may be invisible: and so he may, for it is of his own making, and not of mine. I had no more to prove, but that Christ should not be head of an unknown body, because he knoweth his own body and the members know one another, although neither he nor they be known unto the world.  
Yet another while I allege, that though not always, 〈…〉 et at one certain time, it should become invisible, at 〈…〉 he coming of Antichrist, or rather when Antichrist 〈…〉 ath prevailed, I speak of the church in this world, & of the invisiblenes unto the wicked world, what scriptures have you for that? saith Bristol, Ar. 27. & 77. It ●as prophesied, that the church should fly into the Wilderness. The defection which saint Paul speaketh of, concerning the church's invisibleness, I have pro●ed, how substantial the argument is before, Cap. 7. Par. 4. But now Bristol opposeth scriptures to prove, ●hat the church in the time of Antichrist should be both ●isible and universal; For there shallbe preaching all the time of persecution by the true witnesses, Apoc. 11. even 1260. days, or 42. months, which cometh to three years and an half. But after they be slain and ●lye unburied 3. days and an half; which is also the time of Antichristes tyranny, and the greatest ruff of ●is cruelty, who shall preach then openly against Antichrist? for of such preaching we speak. But lest you should imagine these days to be common days of 24. hours long, as you seem to do of the 1260. days etc. you may see, that the inhabitants of the earth, could not have time to publish their death and send gifts, etc. in so short a season as three days and an half of natural days account. But you say the preaching shall be as general as the persecution. That cannot be of so small 2 number of witnesses. For that you quote Apoc. 14. pertaineth to the time of Antichristes consumption toward the end, and his final destruction, for immediately followeth the Angel, showing the fall of Babylon.  
Last of all, you object Apoc. 20. that the persecutors being in number as the sand of the Sea, shall over the wide world compass the camp of the faithful, & the city of God: therefore the church shall be at the same time universal, & super latitudinem terrae. I doubt not but the church shallbe universal in her greatest straits, & dispersed over all the earth, when she is fled into the wilderness, which signifieth her desolate condition, & not her place wout the world but neither of both is proved by the text before alleged. For it followeth not, although th● enemies with their multitude shall come up, and as it were cover the face of the earth, and so compass the camp of the faithful, and the beloved city: that therefore the camp of the faithful and the beloved city is as large and as many in number, as their enemies: when experience proveth the contrary, at this day, if all that be baptised were true Christians, and the Church of Christ, yet are they nothing in multitude, in comparison of the Turks and Infidels: wherefore for any thing that is here showed, the Church should be invisible to the world, when Antichrist should be in his greatest tyranny.  
Namely of their church and of ours: by conference of places 
Bristol.  that are about Antichrist. That neither Antichrist nor the apostasy agreeth to Bon●face the third.  
Being demanded, Ar. 35. what year the religion of Papists came in and prevailed: I answer, that although 
Fu●ke.  many abuses and corruptions entered into the Church of Christ, immediately after the Apostles time, which the devil planted, as a preparative for his eldest son Antichrist: yet we may well say, that the religion of Papists came in and prevailed, that year in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation, which was 607. when Boniface the third, for a great sum of money, obtained of Phocas the murdering Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted▪ the head of all the church: which devilish heresy increased until the year of our Lord 1414. when the council of Constance decreed that sacrilege of the communion in one kind.  
Likewise, Ar. 16. After I had showed the persecution of the true Church until Constantine, and soon after by the Arrians, than the overthrow of the Empire by the barbarous, heretical & idolatrous nations: I conclude, But when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the West, seduced the world with most detestable heresy, than was fulfilled that which was revealed to S. john, Apo●. 12. The woman clothed with the Sun, which is the Church, was so persecuted by the dragon, that she fled into the Wilderness, there t● remain a long season.  
These sayings of mine, Bristol rehearseth, cut off in the waist, as though I referred the dragon's persecution, only to the Pope: which I say plainly began before, but was most perfect concerning the apostasy, in the reign of the popish Antichrist. Again, he sayeth, I do apply this prophesy only, because of the Pope's primacy● which is false, but because of his false doctrine and heresy also. For that he sayeth the Pope's primacy is a truth of the Gospel, and practised before Bonifacius, ●he referreth us for proof to Saunders trey terous book of Monarchy, and I for answer, will send the reader ●o my overthrow of his Romish Rock. The supposed contradictions I refer always to the proper place, Cap. 11.  
But, O sir, where is the Scripture that you promised ●o bring so clear? etc. saith Bristol. Sir my promise was, for articles of doctrine in controversy between us, ●nd not for the fulfilling of every prophesy, which the ●ffect must better expound oftentimes, than the words.  
But furthermore (saith Bristol) you make show of a ●ext which is against you, and use most detestable falsification, saying the Church should remain in the wilderness a long season, but the text is clean contra●y, a very short season. Say you so, Bristol? where have you these words in the text, a very short season? But you have 1260. days, and a time, two times, and ●alfe a time. And can you tell us the length of these ●imes or of the days either? In the weeks of Daniel, ●nto whom you refer the exposition of the two times (for you have not two times, but times indefinitely in the revelation) the prophetical days are as long as common years. As for the time, two times, and half a ●ime, who is able to define the length of them?  
But by Scripture you will prove a very short season, and first you jumble together, two diverse prophecies, of Apoc. 12. & 20. of the losing of Satan for a short season. Why man? short and long be Relatives. The time of Satan's losing is short, in comparison, either of the long time that he was bound, or of the long and eternal time in which he shall remain in perpetual bondage. For though Antichrist reigned in open revelation, and not in mystery of iniquity only, by the space of 807. years, more or less, and yet be not utterly consumed, but yet in his consumption: Nevertheless, for a whole 1000 years after Christ, the gospel of salvation continued in the church, though much defiled with superstition, yet sound in the only foundation, Christ, openly testified by sundry public teachers, until Sylvester the second, Anno Domini 1000 by the devil himself (as even the Popish stories confess) was put in possession of the See of Rome, & then was the church driven into greater straights than ever before; the doctrine of salvation being turned into idolatry and blasphemy.  
But it is monstrous, that Bristol expoundeth the consummation of the 1000 years, by the gospel, speaking of the consummation of the world, Matt. 24. Mark 13. and confoundeth those things that are spoken of the destruction of the temple and jerusalem, with the end of the world. And where he citeth Matth. 42. sta●i●● post, straight after the persecution of those short days, considering that from the destruction of jerusalem unto the end of the world, so many hundredth years are passed, he might learn at the jest, not to measure the length and shortness of times, by men's reckonings, but to remember, that with the Lord a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years, 2. Pet. 3.  
His other patching of Centones, like Valentinians, in steed of conference of scripture, because they consist of his only assertion, without reason or authority, I need not to confute. As that the daily sacrifice, which Daniel prophesieth, should be taken away by the death of Christ, Daniel the 9 &. 12. he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the Mass; By the which ●aint Paul prophesied, that we should announce our ●ordes death: as though Saint Paul spoke that of a sacrifice, and not express of eating that bread and drinking that cup of the Lord.  
Like wise, speaking of the abomination of desolation, he sayeth: Daniel agreeth with the gospel & the apocalypses, where he sayeth: Daniel 12. From the time ●hen the daily sacrifice shallbe taken away, and the abomination set up for desolation, days 1290. Blessed is 〈…〉 e that expecteth and cometh to days 1335. What agreement is between 1260. days and these two numbers? beside that Daniel 9 the Angel showeth, that ●he abhominatian of desolation in the temple, and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation ●nd end.  
Last of all, he will prove, that the season is short, ●ut of the Apostle, 2. Thess. 2. where he chargeth the Thessalonians, that they be not troubled as though the ●ay of the Lord were then instant, for Antichrist must ●irst be revealed. And then in deed (sayeth Bristol) ●he day of our Lord is instant. And how know you ●hat? For our Lord jesus Christ (sayeth he) will kill ●im with the breath of his mouth. What immediately, Bristol? so soon as he is showed openly, will you allow him no time, to exercise the power of Satan in all lying signs and wonders? shall he be killed before he have practised all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish, to whom God shall ●ende the efficacy of error, that they may believe lying, that all they which have not believed the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness may be condemned? This will ask a longer time, then three years and an half of the suns revolution, or 42. months of the moons circuit. It is not one man's person or age that can suffice to deceive all them that have not believed the truth.  
His last conceit, in distinguishing the apostasy from the revealing of Antichrist, by the token given of the abolishing of the Roman Empire, which should come to pass before the revealing, but not before the apostasy, because it is his own drowsy imagination, without ground, I will not vouchsafe to confute, especially, seeing the Apostle ver. 3. joineth the Apostasy and the revelation immediately together.  
Whether Antichrist or the Apostasy agree to the Protestants. 
Bristol.   
In this title is nothing but surmises, whereof he him 
Fulke.  self is uncertain: but for one place in the Apocalypse he would say, under the churches leave, that our heresy is the apostasy, the place is in the first V● of the Locusts, and their king Abaddon Apoc. 9 where somethings agree, and other things agree not, etc. But let him look on the commentary of Bullinger, Alphonsus, Chytraeus, john Bale, and other, and he shall find a nearer agreement of that kingdom to the Pope and his lecherous Locusts, the Monks and Friars, than he can imagine unto us. I pass over the abomination of desolation, which one while he maketh Luther's and Caluins' inventions; another while, the king's arms set in place of the most sweet and glorious rood; yea, the image of a vile grasshopper in a church that is well known, which is an umbratical desolation, as the images of jupiter and the Emperors were in the temple etc. matters to be laughed at, although perhaps he lie, because he dare not name the church, or else is afraid it should be reformed, if any vain painter hath set up such images. And yet what more common in Popery, than not only to paint, but also to carve the images of kings, and noble men's arms, even upon the roodeloft of the Churches, where they were patrons? At last he challengeth me to join with him upon his last demand, which is apostasy, unto which I have answered long since. Finally, he will discharge the Pope from being antichrist, by the commentary which the scripture itself makes. The seven heads are seven hills, upon which the woman sitteth: And they are seven kings: whereof five are fallen, which are the persecuting kings, before the time when this was spoken. What then? One is presently, who therefore is meant of the Roman Emperors, and all other kings persecuting with them. The other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must remain a short season, who evidently is Antichrist in proper person.  
This exposition hitherto may agree with the Pope: Nay (saith Bristol) for he must remain not a long season, as the five, and as the one, but a short season, only three years and an half. But where have you the length of his continuance compared with the five and one? All the time of the Church's persecution is but short, in comparison of the infinite comfort, that she shall have everlastingly, though it be long in the judgement of flesh and blood, measuring the time by the brevity of man's life, and the seasons of this world, as Bristol doth the three years and an half. But this is worthy to be noted, that he expoundeth the sixth king for the whole state of Roman Emperors, and other persecuting kings, as he doth the five kings that were passed, and yet against all reason and analogy, would have the seventh (which is antichrist) to be one singular man, so to avoid, that the whole rabble of Pope's cannot be antichrist. Now followeth the exposition of the ten horns, which are ten kings, which have not yet taken kingdom, but they shall take power as kings even in one hour with the beast, that is, together with Antichrist (saith he) to serve him as his feed knights. I marvel whether he will not expound the hour in this place for the 24. part of a natural day. For otherwise we see by histories, that the advancement of the Pope, was the decay of the Empire in the West, and with him arose a multitude of kings in every province, which before were subject to one Emperor.  
And so you see evidently (saith Bristol) by these seven hills, thus expounded, that the woman which sitteth upon them, is not so little a one, as you do make her, but that she is Mundus impiorum: the whole world of wicked men. But where do we see this evident exposition of the seven hills? we have seen the exposition of the seven heads, to be seven kings, and also seven hills: but we see no exposition of the hills, who must needs be taken in their proper sense, because they are the exposition of another figurative speech, namely seven heads. But the woman (you say,) is no little one, which sitteth on the seven hills, but the world of wicked men. Let the holy ghost I pray you expound the woman, as well as the heads of her beast. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which hath the kingdom over the kings of the earth. This is a clear exposition of the whore of Babylon, the woman; and as clear a description of the city of Rome, which in that time, had the kingdom over the kings of the earth, and is the city builded upon seven hills, before expounded to be one of the significations of the seven heads, a persecuter of the saints under the Emperors, and a poisone● and persecutor of the Church under the Popes. And therefore Mundus impiorum is a false exposition, which I will prove by this reason. The whore of Babylon is a great city, having dominion over the kings of the earth: but the whole world of wicked men is not a great city, having dominion over the kings of the earth: therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men. Again, The whore of Babylon is a city situated upon seven hills: The whole world of wicked men is not a city situate upon seven hills: therefore the whore of Babylon is not the whole world of wicked men.   

The third part.  
Concerning the question of purgatory, and first ab authoritate 
Bristol.  scripturae negatiuè.  
I said. Purg. 44●. It is no good logic, to conclude 
Fulke.  negatively of any one place or book of scripture: yet contrary to mine own rule, (Bristol saith) I conclude negatively out of the place 1. Thes. 4. S. Paul findeth ●one other comfort, to moderate the mourning of the faithful, but only the quiet rest of them that are asleep in the Lord, and the hope of their glorious resurrection: ergo there is no comfort in praying for their souls. 〈◊〉 answer, mine argument is apt and good to confute Allen, which citeth that place to prove, that as immoderate mourning, is against the hope of the resurrection, so being joined with prayers and alms, it hath the lively hope of life in those that sleep in peace. This advantage Bristol hath, by rending and tearing mine arguments from the body of my book, that it cannot be perceived, upon what ground I use them. Nevertheless having often before in that answer to Allen, protested that he could bring nothing out of the scriptures for allowing prayer for the dead, this argument is to be referred to the same conclusion, after this manner. If in most convenient place, the holy ghost ●oyne not prayer and alms to moderate mourning for the departed, then doth he join them in no place: but in most convenient place he joineth not: ergo in no place. The mayor is proved by the wisdom of God's spirit, which always chooseth that which is most convenient: the minor is manifest and granted: ergo the conclusion is true. But Bristol asketh me if I preaching to moderate the mourning of the faithful, use none other comfort then these two? I answer him concerning the state of the departed, I use none other proper places of comfort but these two, the hope of their glorious resurrection, & their quiet rest in the mean time. But S. Paul, saith Bristol, speaketh nothing of their quiet rest after death, although he name them that are asleep in the Lord. If they sleep in the Lord, they are not only at rest, but in happiness. Can you interpret to sleep in the Lord, to be in hellish torments, such as you feign your purgatory pains to be? Are they not blessed which die in the Lord? The Prophet Esay saith, cap. 57 of the righteous after their death, that there shallbe peace, they shall rest in their beds: Ergo, they that sleep in the Lord, enjoy a quiet rest.  
The 2. argument is out of 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul rehearseth what he received and delivered concerning the sacrament, but oblation for the dead, he rehearseth no● ergo he neither received nor delivered it. So you make (saith Bristol) as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration contrary to that he sayeth afterward, of setting other things in order. I answer, that objection is avoided in the same place immediately after, Pur. 362. & therefore I will not here repeat the answer. And that it is not of one place negatively, you yourself here confess, that I deny it to be written by any of the Evangelists which entreat of the sacrament. But you are not ashamed to affirm, that the Apostle intended no more in that place, but to correct the sin of unworthy receiving, upon coulot of a place of Augustine, Ep. ad jan. 118. Cap. 3. Ind enim. For that respect, the Apostle also sayeth, that they receive it unworthily, who do not by a reverence singularly dew, discern it from other meats, as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently considered. Doth Augustine say, or can any man prove out of his saying, that he meant, that S. Paul intended no more, but to correct the sin of the unworthy receiving? But admit it were so, how could he better correct that sin, then by showing the whole institution, substantial matter and form, end and use of that sacrament, and so he doth, although ceremonies and external observations about it, he doth not express.  
The third argument is out of Leu. 21. and Numer. 19 which prescribe what law was appointed for lamenting the dead and diverse other ordinances concerning the dead, in which was no sacrifice, or prayer for the dead was offered, but that they were so separated from the living, that the priests might have nothing to do with them but in special cases. Bristol sayeth, I might as well conclude that the dead should not be buried. In ●eede so to conclude, were to conclude of one place negatively, but I presuppose my former assertion, that ●n no place of Scripture there is mentioned prayer or offering for the dead, no not in those which contain special order for the dead. I add further, that the ●riest to whom specially offering of sacrifice pertaineth, ●s so separated from the dead, that he is forbidden to ●ourne for them, much more to offer sacrifice for than, ●r to pray for them, which can not be without lamentation for their miserable estate etc.  
From these particular places, I come to the whole ●awe, and conclude negatively thus: All lawful sacrifices were prescribed by the law: Sacrifice for the dead ●as not prescribed by the law: therefore it was no lawful sacrifice. The answer he saith is by returning it ●ppon myself, but in deed he maketh it by denying ●he minor: affirming that sacrifice for the dead was prescribed under the name of sacrifice for sin. I might ●ere reply, out of your own doctrine, that not the guiltiness, but the pain of sin is in many to be pur●ed, which have obtained remission of all their sins, ●ither by Pope's pardon, or priests absolution, or by ●ods forgiveness unto the penitent. But I will follow the argument I showed that the form of sacrifice ●as such, as could not be offered but of the living or ●or the living, because they are commanded in all sacrifice for sin generally to lay their hand upon the head of the beast to be sacrificed. Hereunto Bristol replieth, that this gross absurdity would follow, that sacrifice for sin could not be offered, but of them that were present: therefore not for the children, the sick, ●or captives, for kings and cities of the world uncircumcised, and diverse other sorts. I reioygne, that no sacrifices for sin, but sacrifices of thanksgiving or prospe●ities, could be offered for the absent: and especially for the uncircumcised which could not have remission of sins, before they were engraffed into the people of God, but temporal benefits at the prayers of God's people they might obtain. As for children, sick, captives, etc. they might have remission of sins without sacrifice, which was but the Sacrament thereof, as well in their childhood, sickness, captivity, when they could not offer according to the law, as in time of desolation and destruction of the Temple, when no sacrifice for sin could be offered by any or for any, but only in the place where the tabernacle or temple was. Wherefore the sacrifice of judas Machabaeus wheresoever he learned it, hath no warrant i● the law.  
The fourth argument, of the whole scripture negatively to conclude, I said it is good logic, after this manner. All true doctrine is taught in the scripture: Purgatory is not taught in the scripture: therefore purgatory is no true doctrine. Bristol denieth both the mayor and minor. The mayor I have proved in this chapter, part 1. after the examination of the 8. text of scripture. The minor he would prove to be false by these reasons. First purgatory is taught in the scripture in the Maccabees, Which he saith is in the canon of the true Church, which I also confess, to be the true Church in the third counce 〈…〉 of Carthage, and therefore it is canonical, if any other scripture be Canonical. Supposing that which is false, that the Macabees were canonical, yet is not Purgatory proved by them: prayer for the dead doth not necessarily draw purgatory after it. The Grecians of long time have used prayer for the dead, yet they do not receive the doctrine of purgatory. But to prove the Maccabees to be Canonical, he citeth the third council of Carthage, wherein the two books of Maccabees are accounted amongst the rest. But there are also five books of Solomon, whereas we know there are only three, namely the proverbs, the Canticles and the Preacher. Therefore that canon proveth a manifest error of the council to allow five books of Solomon in steed of three. Let Bristol now bring out the fourth and fifth book of Solomon, and say they be Canonical, if any other scripture be Cano nicall.  
The Council of Laodicea more ancient, nameth not the Maccabees. Jerome a Priest of Rome expressly denieth them to be Canonical, Praefatione ●n Proverbia. Ruffinus also, in his exposition of the Creed, affirmeth the Church not to receive them as Canonical: beside so many arguments as the books themselves, do minister which agree, that they were written by the spirit of man, and not by the spirit of God.  
To proceed, Bristol saith that purgatory is taught so plainly 1. john 5. that I could not avoid the place but by falling into this horrible absurdity, that we may not pray for all men living. I said in deed we ought not to pray for them that sin unto death, of which john saith: I say not that you should pray for it, or that any man should pray for it, as your vulgar translation hath it: But how it is proved out of that place, he saith never a word.  
Last of all purgatory is taught (saith Bristol) Specially against you sir. john 11. For you say after your manner passing confidently, that Martha and Marie (as the scripture is manifest) did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his body, before the general resurrection. If that be so manifest, what else was it then but the rest of his soul that Martha would have Christ to pray for, when she said thus, unto him: But also now I know that what soever things, thou shalt ask of God, God will grant thee? To which purpose also some ancient writers expound the place. Thus far Bristol. But I pray you sir, why do you not tell us the names at least of those ancient writers that so expound the place; Peradventure they were not worth the naming. But are you such a cunning disputer ex concessis, to wrest that I say of Martha and Marie before the coming of Christ, to all times after? as though I said, that they never hoped for their brother's restitution, because they hoped not before Christ came to Bethanie, as Allen impudently conjectureth, that Lazatus was restored to his body at their prayers made at his tomb: where there is no mention of any prayers, but of lamentation only. I can not tell whether I should here require in you more wit or honesty, or else less impudence, & malice. But this was your purpose of cavilling and quarilling, when you durst not attempt the confutation of my bookein such plain order as I answered Allen, but in this confuse manner, to bring all my arguments first out of joint, and then to play with them at your pleasure.  
2 Ab authoritate scripturae, affirmatiuè First about certain 
Bristol.  foundations of purgatory, and prayer for the dead.  
I said, the word of God overthroweth the popish distinction of sins mortal & Venial, showing that 
Fulke.  all sins of their own nature deserve eternal death: and yet all by the mercy of God are pardonable or venial, except the sin against the holy ghost. Bristol saith, that I here grant the doctrine, and yet deny the distinction: which is utterly false: for, that all sins deserve eternal death, and yet be pardonable, it overthroweth the doctrine and distinction both. For the Papists hold, that there are some sins so small, as they deserve not in their own nature eternal damnation, as Bristol immediately hereafter confesseth, where he denieth that the curse of God pronounced Deut. 27. and Gal. 3. against all them that abide not in all things written in the law, extendeth not unto eternal death, saying that hanging on tree, or crucifying is not eternal death, and yet is accursed of God Deut. 21.  
Again, every one, in the saying of the Apostle, is not meant of Christians, but of them, which trust in the law itself &c. Do you not hear plainly the old serpent's voice, Nequaquam moriemini: Tush you shall not die, the curse of God doth not bring eternal death, you need not be so greatly afraid of it, & c? But where learned you Bristol, that the curse of God, which is upon him that hangeth on tree, is not a visible token, that he deserveth eternal death? Is ●ot the text plain against you, Deut. 21. When a man ●ath sinned worthy of death, and is judged to death, & ●anged on the tree, his carcase shall not remain upon 〈…〉 e tree, but shallbe buried the same day, for he is accur 〈…〉 d of God that is hanged on the tree: therefore thou 〈…〉 alt not defile the land which the Lord thy God hath ●iuen thee to possess. He is not therefore accursed, because he is hanged on the tree, if he were innocent; but because he hath sinned worthy of death, & so is hanged: 〈◊〉 which respect our saviour Christ, being hanged on 〈…〉 e tree, though most innocent in his own person, 〈…〉 et bearing the guiltiness of all our sins, became accursed for us, not to discharge us of such a curse 〈◊〉 did not bring eternal death (but by your imagis 〈…〉tion might fall upon an innocent person) but 〈◊〉 redeem us from the curse of the law, which we ●aue incurred more than ten thousand times through 〈…〉 r manifold sins and transgressions. And that 〈…〉 e curse pronounced Deuteronom. 27. bringeth with it 〈…〉 e pain of eternal death, I wish every man 〈…〉 at will not be deceived, with the flattering voice 〈…〉 f the Serpent, to give ear to the word of GOD, ●here he shall see, that this is a conclusion of the 〈…〉 rses, solemnly to be pronounced by the Levites, 〈◊〉 which Amen was to be answered of all the people: ●gainst idolaters, cursers of parents, murderers, ince〈…〉uous vous persons, removers of their neighbour's marks, oppressors of the fatherless and strangers, etc. and generally against all transgressors of the Law, unto whom the curse of eternal damnation is threatened ●n the same words ', that it is to the rest. Mark also, where the Apostle to the Galath 3. by this curse, proveth all them that be under the law, to be subiect● unto this curse, how the serpent denying this curse to be the assurance of eternal death, maketh the case of them to be nothing so dangerous, but continuing under the Law, they may avoid eternal death. And where he saith every one in the Epistle, is not meant of Christians, I would know of him whether the Galathians, to whom saint Paul writeth, were not Christians, but yet seduced by false Apostles, to take upon them the observation of the law, which as it was impossible, so it would bring them from the blessing of Christ, unto the curse of God. That true Christians are discharged of this curse, it is by the only merit of Christ's satisfaction, and not that the sins themselves deserve not everlasting death, though they b●● never so small of their own nature, by the sentence of God's curse, which is a just reward for transgression. Heb. 2.  
The two other places that I cite for this purpose: The soul that sinneth shall die: Ezech. 18. and, the reward of sin is death: Rom. 6. he will expound by the saying of saint james Chapt. 1. sin when it is consummate, gendereth death: as though this place of S. james denied sin, not brought into act, to deserve death, because showing that the cause of men's destruction i● in themselves, from the first concupiscence to the last and grossest Act, he concludeth that those gross acts bring a man into eternal death. Our saviour Christ saith, this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. Were it not good Logic and Divinity also, of this place to conclude, that condemnation pertaineth not to men, but where the light offered is refused; or that if Christ had not come, none had been condemned? john. 3. and likewise, yea much rather, where Christ saith: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they should not have had sin? john. 15. Were the obstinate jews clear of sin by Bristow'S judgement, before Christ came? But let us examine his reason. It is sin (saith he) as soon as it is gendered, but it gendereth not death so so one as it is gendered: Therefore some sin there is, that gendereth notd each. The minor is false, for Saint james, saying that sin consummate gendereth death, doth not say that sin gendereth not death, so soon as it is gendered. But behold yet his impudent wresting of the scripture, he addeth also an exception, unto sin consummate, that not every sin consummate gendereth death, except the matter be of weight accordingly. For else that the lightness of the matter, as an idle word bringeth not death, he sufficiently signifieth in saying, that in a weighty matter, the lightness or imperfection of consent doth it not. These are his words, by which you may see, that without all shame, he imputeth such sayings to Saint james, as he can find never a word in hi●, sound like such 〈◊〉 saying. But this is the manner of heretics, which learn not all truth out of the Scriptures to bring their opinion to the scripture, and to enforce the words thereof, against all equity, to signify and say, whatsoever it pleaseth them. Now that saint james holdeth that every sin deserveth death, I will prove out of his own saying, by this argument: Whosoever is guilty of all the law and commandments, deserveth eternal death: Whosoever offendeth in one, is guilty of all: therefore whosoever offendeth in one, deserveth eternal death. The mayor I trust you will grant: The minor is Saint james cap. 2. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and offend but in one point, he is guilty of all: Then seeing every sin is a breach of God's Law, as Saint john affirmeth, john 3. not only great sins, but also small sins, wherein soever men offend against the law of GOD deserve eternal death, which cannot be avoided but by remission for Christ's sake: for be the sin never so small, it is committed against GOD the author of the Law, who thereby hath forbidden all sins, which reason the Apostle useth, to prove that he which offendeth in one, is guilty of all.  
And therefore the texts by me alleged do sufficiently prove, that all sins of their own nature are mortal. 
Whether after sin remitted, pain 
Bristol.  may remain.   
That God remitteth the punishment, with the fault, in respect whereof the punishment is due, I prove by 
Fulke.  Ezek. 18. & 33. where the Lord promiseth to put away the remembrance of a sinners offences, that truly turneth unto him, bringing forth the fruits of repentance. Bristol saith, this taketh not place before the day of judgement, whereby it would ensue, that to man could have comfort of his sins forgiven in this life. But he opposeth the sayings of the Prophet, Psal, 24. & 78. Lord remember not the sins of my youth: and, Lord remember not our old sins: which are the prayers of the penitent, to obtain forgiveness of their sins: which once obtained, they say, The Lord hath removed our sins from us, as far as the East is from the West. Psalm 102. That may be, saith Bristol, in respect that they be removed from eternal damnation, although they have yet to abide never so much temporal punishment. I will prove that to be false. To be removed as far as the East is from the West, is as far as may be: but not to be removed from temporal punishment, is not to be removed as far as may be: therefore it is not to be removed as far as the east is from the West. But the whole Psalm, saith Bristol, is spoken not of the time of our receiving into God's favour by absolution: but of our final restitution, which shall be at the later day. What can be said more absurdly? Thanks are there given to GOD, not only for spiritual benefits, but also for temporal.  
The fatherly pity of GOD towards us as his children which keep his covenant and are mindful of his commandments to do them, is there set forth, which every man that is not blind with heretical malice, will acknowledge to be extended toward us in this life, & therefore also the forgiveness of our sins, and removing of them as far as Heaven from earth, and East from West. As for the argument of singing that Psalm in the popish Church, upon the feast of Christ's ascension, to prove, that it pertaineth altogether to the later day, is as good, as it is true, ●hat the words there spoken, are only of our final ●estitution at the later day.  
To the example of the publican, he answereth ●hat there is no more said, but that he went home justified more than the Pharisee. yes, there is said, that ●ee was justified by forgiveness of sins, which he confessed, not trusting in himself that he was righteous, although he ascribed all his virtues to the grace of GOD as the Pharisee did: O GOD I thank thee etc. jump with the Papists, Luke 18. But Bristol asketh me, how I prove that he which is justified may not be in some debt? seeing all the justified children of GOD, are taught to pray, forgive ●s our debts. I prove it thus. He that is by GOD justified, is accounted for just: But he that is just, is ●n no debt for sin: therefore he that is justified, is in ●o debt for sin. That the faithful are taught to ●raye daily, forgive us our debts, it is because they ●inne daily, and by sin enter into debt, and therefore have need of daily remission to continue justified.  
The Prodigal child Luke 15. he saith, is the Gentile received by baptism, who if after baptism he became prodigal, he saith, I have not proved, that being received by penance, we must enjoin him no more punishment, then at his other receiving. Beside that he restraining this parable only to Gentiles, coming first to Baptism, depriveth the faithful of inestimable comfort, he neither hath any word in the scripture so to restrain it, and the whole context is against him. For Saint Luke showeth the occasion of the three parables of the lost sheep, of the lost Groat, and of the prodigal Child, to have been, because the Scribes and Pharisees murmured, that he received the Publicans, and sinners, which all were jews and circumcised, yet fallen from the covenant of God by infinite and notorious sins: therefore according to right analogy, the lost Child, even as the lost sheep, and lost Groat, is every penitent sinner; the elder brother, as the 99 sheep, and 9 groats are the Scribes and Pharisees, which through hypocrisy in their own judgement, are righteous and need no repentance.  
To the 2. debtor Luke 7. he answereth, that although Christ forgave them both, yet they both had to be forgiven after, according to the proportion of their love. This importeth manifest contradiction, he forgave all, yet something was not forgiven. Yea saith Bristol, Marie had much sins forgiven her, because she loved much, and therefore long after her hearts conversion, and therefore after her first forgiveness, Christ sayeth: Thy sins are forgiven thee.  
This is a strange kind of reasoning. Christ showing the cause of Mary's great love, to have been for that great sins were forgiven her, expresseth in voice, that which she before conceived by faith, that her sins were forgiven her, Ergo after her first forgiveness, she had need of a second, which she procured by love. And yet it is more fond, that in saying to Simon and of Simon the Pharisee: To whom less is forgiven, he loveth less, he giveth him to understand, that he owed more than he was aware, and therefore he should increase as Marie did in penitential love. First how proveth he that Simon was this other debtor, to whom less was forgiven? Secondly, admit that he was, how proveth he, that he should show as great penitential love as Marie, seeing his debt was not so great as Maries, and therefore needed not so great a proportion of his love, according to his own heresy of merit? Thirdly, when Christ sayeth, To whom less is forgiven he loveth less, he speaketh not so much of the quantity of sins, but the acknowledging of them greater or lesser. For he that confesseth great sins to be pardoned, acknowledgeth that he is bound to great love, as Marie did: the Pharisee, who, though his sins were as great as Maries, & in GOD'S sight, by means of hypocrisy more abominable, yet was so blinded in opinion of his own righteousness, that he saw them not, and therefore this love was as cold, as he imagined his sins forgiven to be few and small.  
Thus the history of the sinful woman's great love, proveth nothing that punishment remaineth due to be paid after the debt is forgiven. Whether this woman were Marie Magdalen, as Brîstowe calleth her, I will not here dispute. Saint Luke giveth her no name. 
Whether Purgatory follow upon this last foundation. 
Bristol.    
The foundation is overthrown, for all sins are 
Fulke.  proved to deserve eternal death, and when God pardoneth them, he pardoneth them clearly, as well the punishment as the guiltiness, for what should he punish in them that are guilty of no sin by his pardon. Therefore where I cited Psalm. 103. That God hath not dealt with us according to our sins, etc. Bristol is driven to his former shift, that these words are spoken of the Prophet only, for the time of the final reward which I have confuted before.  
Concerning those that repent at the hour of death, I said they have reward of eternal life, as well as they that repent sooner, by authority of the parable Matthew 20. of them that came the last hour, to work in the vinyeard.  
Bristol saith, I am deceived, because I cannot see any justice in mercy. Yes verily, I see the justice of God fully answered in Christ, not in the person that needeth mercy, who is pardoned and justified gratis freely, Rom. 3. & 11. But the spirit of God sayeth, Apoc. 2. that he will give to every one of you according to his works: whereupon Bristol inferreth, the God is not alike good to all, that he hath once showed mercy unto, for Christ, to all the baptized. I answer that text is a threatening to jesabel, & them that commit fornication with her, if they do not repent from their works. For it followeth immediately. But to you I say and the rest in Thyatei●●, that have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depth of Satan, as they say, I will not lay upon you any other burden, etc. although it be true, that God rewardeth every man according to his works, which is in quality good or evil, not in quantity as much or as little as they deserve. What shall I say that Bristol bringeth in a variety of pence, contrary to the scope of the parable, & affirmeth the pence to be wages for the working & that also by bargain? So that eternal life is not the gift of God, neither are men saved by grace & not of works, in his judgement, contrary to the Apostles plain doctrine. Eph. 2.  
In the conclusion he saith, If you can prove that God will show as full mercy also where he findeth not that fullness of Christ's grace, then call us hardly enemies, for not suffering God to show mercy to whom he will. But where wanteth that fullness of Christ's grace, in any of Gods elect? Is it where greatest sins be? The Apostle answereth, where sin hath abounded, grace hath more than abounded. Rom. 5. Wherefore the fullness of the grace of Christ being extended to the greatest sins, what should we doubt that the lesser should not be swallowed up of it? 
Whether in Christ the works of one may help another. 
Bristol.    
I said Purg. 198. I have learned in the scripture, that 
Fulke.  there is no name given under heaven, by which they may be helped, which are not helped by Christ's death, Act. 4. Bristol asketh whether I have learned, that they which are helped by the death of Christ, can not through his grace help and be helped one of an other.  
To whom I answer as I said before, to Allen: I learn in scripture, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sin, john. 1. But if there be any which are not purged of all their sins, by the blood of Christ, (as the Papists affirm them to be which have need of other purgation) I have not learned that they can have any help elsewhere. Or if you say, the blood of Christ h●th purged them from all sin, why do you invent another purgatory to purge them, which is not the blood of Christ? for fiery torments according to God's justice are not the blood of Christ shed for our redemption, by which men are justified freely, Rom. 3. through which we have remission of our sins through the riches of his grace. Eph. 1.  
Another reason of mine is grounded upon Allens words, which saith: that they which are in purgatory, can not by any motion of mind, attain more mercy, than their life passed deserved. Whereof I infer, that their faith being a notable motion of the mind, cannot profit them, except the merits of other men should profit them without faith, the Scripture saying, that without faith, it is not possible to please God. Bristol icsting at these iron conclusions, letteth the argument stand, and denieth the latter conclusion, affirming that by their faith, they are in case to be profited by other men's works: which if it be true, then is Allens conclusion false, that they can not profit themselves, by any motion of mind, whereon it will follow that they cannot profit themselves by believing, that other men's works may help them, being destitute of their own. They cannot attain mercy by any motion of mind, Ergo not by faith. 
Fulkes common argument of the omnisufficiency of Christ's 
Bristol.  passion.   
As though I defended the only omnipotency of 
Fulke.  Christ's passion able to purge all sins, and not the omnisufficiency having satisfied for our sins, first he replieth, that an Origenist might likewise say, The omnisufficiency of Christ's passion cannot stand with hell.  
No sir, for against him, is not only the will of Christ, but his Act also past, having sufficiently only for his elect: which satisfaction he communicateth unto them, not in respect of their works, but according to his grace, which can abide no works to join with it in merit, but only faith in receiving confirmed by the sacraments in the persons of all them, that hear his word, and in them that cannot hear, only his grace working either in the sacrament or without it: so that no degrees, proportions, means or instruments, whereof Bristol babbleth, can make any merit to detract from Christ's death, the most plentiful & free grace of satisfaction, for all our sins committed either before baptism, or after.  
For this purpose, I cited 1. john. 2. Pur. 42. to prove that if any man sin after baptism, jesus Christ is our Advocate with the father, and the propitiation for our sins. Bristol answereth, That is true, But that in playing the Advocate for our sins after baptism, he request●th the like & equal grace, as he did in baptism for sins afore baptism, where have you that? If you make Christ's advocation a playing matter, I will take no charge of you. But to let pass your unreverent phrase, what do you ascribe unto him in his office of advocate, but only to be a requester, as every common Saint is counted with you? But you must understand, that the office of an Advocate or patron is, to plead for his clientes, and not to require only, and what hath he to plead for us against the debt of our sins, either before or after baptism but his own satisfaction in his death & suffering? And therefore even that which you ask, where I have i● I have even in the very same words, that he requesteth as an advocate, for our sins after baptism the like and equal grace, as he did in Baptism for sins afore baptism. For there I find him a propitiation for our sins committed after baptism, which word I marvel your blind heresy could not see, whereof I reason thus. The same propitiation, as course of grace working after baptism, that was in or before baptism, must have equal effects of grace: But Christ is the same propitiation after Baptism that he was in it, or before: Ergo he must have the same effects of grace, working the satisfaction of our sins even at the full. Where I allege Purg. 9●. that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all our sins: 1. joh. 1. Bristol answereth, It is taken out of the same place, and ha●h the same answer, to wit, that his blood doth work more graciously in the sacrament of baptism, then in the sacrament of penance. Of penance being a sacrament, I will not here dispute, but follow the principal matter in controversy, whether all ●innes of the repentant, after baptism, be as clearly purged, as they were in baptism by the blood of Christ. Although the propitiation in the former argument, doth sufficiently prove it, yet even this very place is manifestly to be understood of the blood of Christ purging all our sins committed after baptism, as well as before. The blood of Christ, saith S. john purgeth us, that is, me & you (baptised Christians, I doubt not) of all sin, which if we say we have not, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth make pure and clean, and so is the vulgar latin emundat. Again he saith in the same place: if we confess our sins, ●e is faithful and just that he may forgive us our sins, and make us pure from all iniquity. If the blood of Christ, in which we have forgiveness, doth purge us from all our sins, and make us pure from all iniquity, whensoever we acknowledge them with hearty repentance; what place is left for any other purging or cleansing of that, which the blood of Christ and the mercy of God hath made pure and clean?  
That I cite out of S. john, being washed by Christ, we are thoroughly clean. john 13. & out of Esay: Although our sins were as red as scarlet, they are made as white as snow: He answereth these places are evident of baptism. And therefore he admitteth that I said of them so cleansed, that they are made capable immediately of the heavenly inheritance. But why, I pray you, are they evident of baptism? because there is mention of washing in both places? Is there no washing but in baptism? At least wise, will you say, that the Prophet Esay preaching to the people of his age, when he called them to washing, called them to baptism, so many hundredth years before baptism was instituted? Is it not therefore evident, that he calleth them to repentance? Or else, having first so grievously accused them of their present sins, doth he show no comfort, but in the sacrament of baptism, which no man living could then possibly obtain in such manner as you mean, no not the Prophet himself. I might well say to you, as you say to me in another place, In good sooth Daws, these things are not aptly divided according to their times. And that Christ john. 13. speaketh not of the ceremony of baptism, it i● manifest by diverse reasons, but of his grace by which he washeth us from all our sins. And therefore be saith to Peter, except he were washed of him, he could have no part with him. But neither Peter, nor any other was or is baptized of him with water: john 4. therefore he speaketh not of the sacrament of baptism. And where you add, that he which is so washed, must nevertheless wash his feet, that is, say you, his venial sins, which he committeth afterward, although he continue withal in the cleanness of baptism, before he be all clean, and ask me, what if he die before he wash his feet? Admitting that the feet should signify none but venial sins. I ask you again, who shall wash his feet, but he which washed Peter's feet? for the true text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath no need but that his feet be washed. Peter could not wash his own feet in this figurative signification, but except Christ did wash him he could have no part with him. But if we should take the feet only for venial sins, and the general washing for baptism, this inconvenience would follow of Christ's words: that he which is baptized and purged from venial sins, need no purgation to cleanse him from mortal sins, but is perfectly clear. The words of our saviour are general, & cannot admit your exception, of continuing in the cleanness of baptism: therefore the feet signify all sins to be pardoned, after the first grace purging us, which is in deed represented and ratified in baptism, but yet is perfectly distinct from the sacrament, and often times divided. For judas of whom you speak, if he had died immediately after he was baptized, should not have gone to heaven, as one thoroughly washed or cleansed by baptism.  
Where the Papists urge the saying of David, Psal. ●1. Amplius lava me, etc. Wash me more from mine iniquity: Bristol saith, I have nothing to answer, but ●hat it was at God's hand, and by the means of Christ's ●lood, that he prayed to be cleansed. Purg. 97. & 78. Whether I have nothing else to say, let the readers of ●hose places judge. But that which I here say, taketh a●ay Purgatory and all satisfaction of man's merit, although David, as all the faithful do pray, that they may ●aily more and more feel the mercy of God and grace ●f Christ's redemption, to the full satisfying of their conscience, and perfect assurance of faith and hope of eternal life, which though it receive daily increases, yet ●he virtue of Christ's death, in which God is reconciled ●nto us, is always one and the same.  
Where I charge Allen, that the sufficiency of Christ's ●assion, is counted a light argument unto him: Bristol ●aith, it is too light in deed, to bear down any doctrine ●f Christ. But when, or out of what scripture shall we ●eare the doctrine of Christ for men's merits, satisfa●tions, propitiatory, or purgatory itself?  
Where I deny, that our works are any part of satisfaction for our sins, of which the price is thoroughly paid in the passion of Christ: Bristol objecteth the ●aying of the Apostle, Phil. 2. Work your own salvation: and yet it is God that worketh in you. As though there were no working of our salvation, but by satisfaction for our sins. We work our salvation, when we walk in the way that God hath called us to pass through, unto the free gift of eternal life, namely in faith, obedience, thankfulness, etc. which are so far from merit, that it is God which worketh in us, both to will and to perform any good thing, according to his good pleasure. Phil. 2. And therefore we need not the school distinction of causes, for the satisfaction of our sins by our works, which is only the effect of Christ's death and passion, needing no help of our works, which word (Bristol saith) mine ignorance so much abhorreth, and yet the scripture often saith, that God helpeth both Christ, Ps. 17. & us. 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. and also that Christ's helpeth us, Heb. 2. But where sayeth the Scripture, that our works help the passion of Christ? I abhor not the word of helping, when it is used in that sense, that God and Christ should help us; or God help Christ in respect of his humanity: but that man by merit should help God & Christ, in the work of our redemption, satisfaction for our sins, or purging of them, I abho●●e with all my heart: yea, I spit at it, and tread it under my feet. But if the mercy of God (saith Bristol) although i● be singularly omnisufficient doth not exclude neither Christ's passion, nor the working of it, or merits of that man: how doth the omnisufficiency of Christ's passion, enforte you to exclude either his baptism & his good works in his members, or also the working of his baptism, and the working or efficacy of those good works▪ especially seeing the scripture is plain for all. Bristol understandeth not, how the mercy of God is omnisufficient, which is not as e●ery one will imagine, but as it may stand with his justice, which is not otherwise satisfied, but in the passion of Christ: which being thereby fully satisfied, we exclude nothing that the scripture admitteth, but that which not only the scripture denieth, but nature itself abhorreth, that contradictories should be both true: Namely, the justice of God is fully satisfied by the only suffering of Christ: And the justice of god is not satisfied by the only sufferings of Christ, but by other means also, as by our own works, or sufferings, or other men's for us. Neither doth any text of scripture that Bristol citeth, prove this later part of the contradiction to be true. First, where he citeth Tit. 3. He hath saved us by the laver of regeneration: The text is, when the loving kindness & gentleness of God our saviour appeared, not of the works of righteousness, which we wrought, but according to his own mercy, he hath saved us, by the laver of regeneration and the receiving of the holy ghost, which he hath powered forth plentifully upon us by jesus Christ our saviour, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Here it is manifest, we are so ●aued by baptism, that we are justified by his grace, there ●ore not by the merit of baptism or satisfaction of our 〈…〉 nnes' in baptism: but we are saved by baptism, as we ●re enfeoffed by a deed, that is sealed, that is, assured of valuation: as Abraham received circumcision, the seal ●f the righteousness, which he had by faith, before he was circumcised. Ro. 4. and even so he cleanseth his church by ●he laver of water, not by the merit of the work of baptism, but in that he gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, Eph. 5. After the same manner doth baptism save us. 1. Pet. 3. not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, ●ut the interrogation of a good conscience before god, through the resurrection of jesus Christ, which presuppo●eth his death, for satisfaction of our sins, as his resurrection is the special cause of our justification. Last of ●ll, saith Bristol: he hath made us kings & priests to God, Apo. 1. If spiritual priests, ergo, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, as of 〈…〉 ur mortification. Rom. 12. our alms deeds, Heb. 13. both for our own sins, & for the sins of other. Here in the last point, ●he quotation of scripture so plentiful before faileth: but we shall have reason confirmed by scripture: because the external priest is ordained to offer external sacrifices for sins, ●oth for himself & for the people. Heb. 5. But this cause is many ways avoided: for we are priests to offer up the on●y sacrifices of thanksgiving, & not of propitiation for sin, which cannot be without shedding of blood Heb. 9 Secondly, although we be all made priests, yet we are not made high priests, of which the text speaketh. Heb. 5. which office one only can enjoy at one time, which is our saviour Christ, for term of his life, which is without end. Thirdly, those sacrifices which the external priest offered for sins, could never take away sins, Heb. 10. much less our spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving for God's benefits bestowed on us, & his whole church. I cited further. Apoc. 7. These are they that came out of that great affliction, & have washed their stoles, and made them white in the blood of the lamb: therefore they are in the presence of the throne of god. Brist. saith, this word therefore, is referred to their coming out of affliction, and so whited their stoles: And yet this gloser (saith he of me) taketh it away from the affliction, whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction. O impudent and blasphemous heretic: when the holy ghost expressly sayeth, they made their stoles white in the blood of the lamb, darest thou open thy mouth and say, not only, that that whiting was somewhat else then the blood of Christ, but also that it was nothing but that affliction, so utterly excluding the blood of Christ? But I forgot to confer other places of scripture, as he chargeth me. Is there any scripture that ascribeth purification of our sins, to any other thing, than to the blood of Christ? Let us hear what, whoso overcometh, shallbe clothed with white garments. Apoc. 3. But the Martyrs overcame the devil, not only by the blood of the lamb, but also by their own patiented confession, or affliction unto death. Apoc. 12. The text is: and they overcame him by the blood of the lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. Here is no cause of victory, but the blood of the lamb, and the word of their testimony, which was the confession of their faith, the only instrumental cause of their justification and victory: who is he which overcometh the world, saith S. john, but he that believeth? 1. john 5. Faith therefore the only shield to have victory against the world and the devil, hath no power in itself to cleanse our sins, but leaneth altogether to the blood of Christ. But it is a proper thing to see Bristol forsake his vulgar latin authentical translation, and to turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their own martyrdom, which is in deed by the word of their testimony, or which they did testify: whereas by his translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for suffering of death, as I think it is in no Greek author, sure I am it is never so taken in the new testament.  
But Bristol addeth: that S. Paul also accordingly calleth it the mortification of jesus, when the Apostles were mortified for jesus, and sayeth they carried the same about continually in their bodies, that also the life of jesus might also be manifected in their bodies, 2. Cor. 4. I wots well, we must be conformable to Christ in sufferings, that we may be partakers of his kingdom and glory: but doth it therefore follow, that our sufferings merit this glory by his blood? or that his blood without all respect of our merits, doth not alone purge and cleanse us from all our sins? After he had finished the cleansing of our sins by his own self, sayeth the Apostle, he is set down at the right hand of magnificence in the highest. Heb. 1.  
Last of all, Bristol opposeth that Saint Paul saith: This our affliction although it be but short and light, worketh us everlasting weight of glory exceeding measure above measure. 2. Cor. 4. I answer, it worketh not by meriting, not by purging our sins, or by satisfying for our iniquities, but by making us conformable unto our head, in passing by the same way of tribulations unto glory, that he did, even as the way or steps which leadeth unto an high place of dignity, maketh not them worthy of the dignity that must ascend by those steps unto it, and yet it is necessary for them that will come to that dignity, to sit in such places, to take that ordinary way. Therefore as the passage of such way worketh their dignity, so doth affliction work our glory. Not to abridge any part of the glory or merit of Christ's suffering, by which only we are made worthy of glory when all our sins being cleansed by his blood, we appear righteous before God, not in the merit of our own works, nor having our own righteousness, which is by the law, but the righteousness of God, which is by faith of jesus Christ, that we may know him of the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable unto his death, Phil. 3. Wherefore it remaineth, that seeing the blood of Christ purgeth us of all our sins, and jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, committed either after baptism or before, that all other purgings and satisfactions are overthrown, and so popish purgatory remaineth without any foundation: the purging of Christ's blood making us most pure: and Christ our propitiation being thoroughly & only sufficient to reconcile us.  
Secondly: directly of Purgatory itself & prayer for the 
Bristol.  dead, whether all the elect go straight to heaven. Afore Christ's coming Limbus patrum.  
His childish railing on mine arguments, with that 
Fulke.  impudent slander of all the church of God, which he affirmeth was ignorant that any souls went to heaven before their church had defined it, within these 300. years, I pass over, & come to the matter in question. I said Purg. 57 against Allen, maintaining that all the just before Christ were punished for their sins forgiven ma ny hundredth years after their departure in hell. That the fathers of the old testament before Christ were not in hell, it is to be proved with manifest arguments & authorities out of holy scriptures. Although they were not, nor yet are in perfect blessedness, God providing a better thing for us, that they without us, should not be made perfect. Heb. 11. But by this text (saith Brist.) S. Paul doth mean, that their souls were not yet admitted into heaven. How proveth he that? forsooth, the old testament did consummate nothing, etc. but their sins remaining not perfectly remitted, Christ died, etc. A sore bolt, as though any man had his sins forgiven, but by the new testament, or could be heir of the kingdom of heaven, but by the death of Christ. But the same apostle saith. Heb 9 That the way of the saints, was not yet opened, while the first tabernacle stood. Bristol addeth to the text of his own, into soncta or heaven: where the apostle meaneth of the work of Christ's redemption in his death, resurrection & ascension, the effect whereof, nevertheless was extended no less to the fathers of that old testament, then to us. Thirdly, the apostle saith, Heb. 10. that we have confidence to enter in to the holy place, by the blood of jesus, which hath dedicated that new & living way for us, through the veil that is his flesh. All which proveth nothing, but that there is no entrance into heaven, but by Christ, which way is common to all the saints of God, of all ages. But Bristol biddeth me confer the end of my text. Heb. 11. with the beginning: where he saith, they received not the promise which is the exposition of their not consummating: I admit it: for no Christian receiveth the promise consummate before the resurrection of their bodies. The consummation of which promise, & perfection of the saints, God reserveth unto one time, when we shall all receive the promise & consummation together: that they without us (saith he) should not be consummate, the same reason is of the apostles & fathers of the primitive church, & us of the later church, & them that shallbe to the end of the world. Now to mine arguments & authorities of scripture. I reason, that seeing they all believed in Christ, they had everlasting life, & entered not into condemnation, but passed from death to life. joh. 5. To what life (saith Bristol) but the life or resurrection of their bodies? for until the last day, all the dead are in death. O prodigious heretic, call you that a passage from death to life, to continue in death 5. or 6. thousand years? Is God then to this new Saducee, the god of the dead & not of the living? yea, he saith, that life after corporal death in the new testament, lightly every where, signifieth the resurrection of the bodies. What is it then to take hold of eternal life in this world, which shallbe interrupted with so long abiding in death? 1. Tim. 6. And how can it be true which our saviour saith: he that believeth in me, hath already eternal life, if they that are passed out of this world are all in death? wherefore then is this eternal life interrupted with any Purgatory, Limbus patrum, or death.  
The second argument is, of that Christ is called the lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world; because the benefit of his passion extendeth unto the godly of all ages alike. Apoc. 13. To this, the beast hath nothing to answer, but that it is not said, that the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world: but that all the reprobates shall adore antichrist when he cometh. And because Apoc. 17. the words be: whose names were not written in the book of life from the beginning of the world: he would have those words from the beginning of the world, by a monstrous construction, contrary to the manifest composition and pointing, both in the Greek & vulgar Latin, to be referred not to the lamb slain, but to the book of life. As though both those texts in their several sense might not be true, except such manifest violence were offered to the construction composition & pointing in this text of the Apoc. Yet he confesseth it to be true, that the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, which is no where else written in the scripture, but here: the cause of the truth, he will not have to be my fond sense, but because his death was preordained of God, and prefigured so long before. A substantial cause by which we may say, that Bristol was dead from the beginning of the world, because his death was so long before ordained of God, and prefigured in the death of Adam.  
The third argument is, that Esay speaking of that righteous that are departed out of this life, sayeth that there is peace, and that they shall rest in their beds, Esa. 57 like as he affirmeth that Topheth which is Gehinnon, or hell, is prepared of old for the wicked. To this he answereth, that Esay speaketh not of his own time, but as a Prophet, of the time now since the coming of Christ, who is our peace, as though Christ were not their peace as well as ours. And what a shameless answer is this, to deny the doctrine of the Prophet concerning the comfort of the faithful after death, to pertain to the faithful of his own time, to whom then it was in vain preached and published by the Prophet? After a little quarrelling against my translation, the sense whereof he cannot deny: he asketh, if the rest of the souls must needs be the bliss of heaven? and telleth us that their Limbus was not a place of sensible pain: But sir, Salome whereinto the Prophet sayeth the righteous do go, will not only give them rest, without sense of pain: but peace with happiness and prosperity. Finally, he sayeth, Topheth or Gehenna, was not the only hell, because our Creed and the Scripture sayeth, that Christ's soul was in hell: I answer, that hell signifieth either the place, or state of torments for sins: in the former, Caluine (whom you slander) saith not that Christ was in, but in the later, when he complained that he was forsaken of God: there is not therefore proved, by Christ's descending into hell, any other place or receptacle of souls in hell, but Topheth and Gehenna the place of the damned.  
The fourth argument against Limbus, is, that Lazarus was carried by Angels, not down to hell, but up to Abraham's bosom. But the rich man being in hell, looked up and seethe Abraham afar of. Bristol asketh whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to be carried up? sir, it signifieth to be carried away, and seeing the rich man looking up, seethe Lazarus afar of, it followeth that Lazarus was carried up and not down. But you reply, it followeth not that he was carried into heaven. Then you may say he was carried up to hell. But the places you say might be nigh together in respect of the distance of heaven, although one were upward, and also far off both in state and situation (purgatory peradventure betwixt them.) This is a goodly faith, that standeth upon peradventure, and this may be, etc. The Scripture saith, there was a great Chaos which is an infinite distance between them, which cannot agree to Limbus, which must be hard adjoining to hell, or else it is not Limbus. But if they were no way nigh together (saith he) it will not follow that Abraham's bosom was heaven. I answer, if they were no way nigh together, it could not be hell, nor Limbus of hell, which is the thing I was to prove. Also the text is plain, that Abraham's bosom was a place of comfort. And other place of comfort then heaven or Paradise, which is all one, for the souls departed, I find none in Scripture.  
The last argument is this: If righteousness belong to Abraham's children, the reward of righteousness also pertaineth to them. Therefore Abraham's bosom was open to receive all the childrem of Abraham, even as the bosom of God was ready to receive Abraham, because he was his son through faith.  
Hear Bristol noteth no small blasphemy, proceeding of gross ignorance, saying, That which is proper to unigenitus, the only begotten son of God, he maketh common to Abraham. Why Bristol? because unigenitus is eternally, and after his proper manner, in the bosom of the father, doth it thereof follow, that none can be in the bosom of GOD, but the proper place of Christ is made common to them? You threaten in the 12. Chapter oftentimes to bewray my gross ignorance in the scriptures, and have you such fine knowledge in them, that you could not see what Esay writeth Chap. 40. according to your own translation, Ecce dominus Deus, etc. Behold the Lord God shall come in strength, and his arm shall have the dominion: behold his reward is with him, and his work before him: As a shepherd he will feed his flock, he will gather the Lambs together on his arm and bear them in his bosom: in sin● suo levabit? Behold you great and mighty doctors in the scriptures, the bosom of GOD as of a shepherd, is open to receive all his Lambs; how much more as a father to receive his children? But to the argument you answer: The reward of righteousness may belong to one, and yet not paid him, as soon as he dieth. Saint Paul saying expressly of Abraham and many of his children, that they departed not receiving the promises, but beholding them a far off: and all these renowned by faith, received not the promise. That is (saith Bristol) the inheritance, the reward of righteousness: I reply, the reward of righteousness cannot belong to one, but it must be paid him as soon as it is paid unto others, to whom the same reward, upon the same cause belongeth: therefore seeing it is paid to some immediately after their death, it is likewise to all. That many died not receiving the promises, is partly understood of the promises of the land of Canaan, partly of the full fruition and perfection of reward, which to all men is denied before the last judgement, and so no inequality or unjustice unto any. 
Whether since Christ all go strait 
Bristol.  to heaven.   
They that live unto Christ, die unto him, and being 
Fulke.  dissolved are with him. The souls of the faithful and the repentant are where Christ is, as he prayeth ●oan 17. so he saith to the thief, no perfect just ●an, but a sinner repentant, This day thou shalt ●ee with me in Paradise, Luke 23. And Saint P●ule desireth to be dissolved and to be with Christ.  
To leave his juggling of seeing Christ's godheades glory, and manhoodes glory, whereof I speak no word, he confesseth the example of Saint Paul declareth, that a perfect just man goeth strait to Christ: Likewise the example if the thief declareth, that a penitent sinner, goeth strait to Christ, if either his penance be full and perfect, or his pardon, which is a remission of his penance be plenary. By this you perceive that penance with him is taken for punishment satisfactory, and not for repentance of the heart and true conversion unto GOD: But there is a plenary pardon and satisfaction for all sins given to every penitent sinner: therefore every penitent sinner goeth straight to Christ whom we know and believe to be in heaven. The minor is proved, by saint john, 1. john 2. jesus Christ is our advocate and propitiation for our sins. The blood of jesus Christ doth purge us from all sins.  
Secondly he saith, I allude to a place, Romans 14. we live to our Lord, and we die to our Lord: whereby nothing else is meant, but that he is our judge in life and death. A bare exposition, if we have no more comfort by living to the Lord, then that he shall be our judge at our death. How be it I ground not mine argument only, of that phrase, to control Augustine's exposition of them that die in the Lord, Apoca. 14. for martyrs only, as you slander me, but compare other places of the faithful, that are asleep in Christ, 1. Corin. 15. And they that are dead in Christ, 1. Thessalonians 4. where the phrases being all one, with that of Apoca. 14. blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, that text cannot be restrained only to the blessedness of martyrs, but extendeth to the happiness of all that are dead in the Lord, which are all the faithful. But the circumstance of the place (saith Bristol) giveth it to be meant of martyrs. I answer, there is no circumstance that can prove it to be spoken only of Martyrs) seeing the argument of their blessedness, is dying in the Lord, which is common to all the faithful, therefore blessedness also, and that is the judgement of S. Augustine de ciu. dei lib. 20 Cap. 9 whatsoever Allen or you prate to the contrary. For after the text rehearsed he writeth thus upon it. Reg. not itaque: The Church therefore now first reineth with Christ in the living, and in the dead. For therefore (as the Apostle saith) Christ died, that he should be Lord over the living and over the dead. But therefore he named only the souls of the Martyrs, because they as the chief, reign being dead, which unto death strived for the truth. But by a part we understand the whole, even the rest that are dead pertaining to the Church which is the kingdom of Christ.  
Whether that judgement may stand with Purgatory. 
Bristol.   
My first argument he maketh of the true falling to the North or South and so resting, which in deed is 
Fulke.  no argument of mine, neither do I think the text Eccle 11. to be understood of the state of men after this life: only I show that Allen by his glosses, hath not satisfied them that so expound it, of whom one is S. Hierom. Purge, 436. 439. 441. Indeed Purge 281. I said, immediately after death (as M. Allen confesseth) followeth judgement, but prayers either need not or boot not, where the party is either acquitted or condemned, by 〈…〉 e sentence of the judge, which, as Augustine saith, cannot be indifferent between reward and punishment. De 〈…〉 b. arb. lib. 3. Cap. 23. To this he answereth first that saint augustines there saith the contrary, as I shall see if I read 〈…〉 e place. Why sir, I read it thus: Superfluo quaeri de meri 〈…〉 s, etc. In vain do men move a question of his merits, which hath deserved nothing, speaking of the death of 〈…〉 n infant) neque enim: for it is not to be feared, lest his 〈…〉 fe could have been media, mean or indifferent, between well doing and sin: Et sententia judicis media es 〈…〉 non possit inter praemium atque supplicium, and the sentence 〈…〉 f the judge cannot be mean or indifferent, between 〈…〉 ewarde and punishment. This I trust shall suffice of my 〈…〉 eading, until we see what you read to the contrary. 〈…〉 ut to mine argument, Bristol answereth for them 〈…〉 at are condemned to hell, prayers boot not: of them 〈…〉 at are acquitted, some straight rewarded in their souls, 〈…〉 o● which they need no prayers, but yet not rewarded 〈◊〉 their bodies for which they pray, Apoc. 6. until they 〈…〉 e heard, Apoc. 11. other not straight rewarded in their 〈…〉 ules, of which some be without sense of punishment, as 〈◊〉 Limbo other be punished temporally, etc. If it be 〈…〉 wfull to make such divisions and subdivisions, without the authority of the scriptures, we may imagine what we will. But sir, for them that be acquitted of sin, and can have no mean sentence between reward and punishment, how can their reward be deferred or how can they be punished for sin, which are acquitted thereof? As for them that lack the reward of their body, it ●s that they may receive it in time most convenient, both for the glory of God and for the commodities of ●ll the saints of God together. As for the martyrs, Apoc. 6, I find they complained for justice against their murderers, I find not that they prayed for the reward of their body: which complaint is to be understood rather of the desert of the wicked persecutors then of the affection of the holy martyrs. The blood of Abel cried vengeance, yet Abel patiently suffered death. The differences of punishment for being angry saying ●ac●, & fatue, prove difference of damnation greater for greater offences, but not of punishment less than damnation due for the least, seeing our saviour Christ appointeth the same guiltiness for unadvised anger, which the Pharisees did for murder: who never were so far past all show of honesty, to make murder a venial sin, not deserving damnation, as you do.  
Another argument is out of Matth. 7. of the two ways, if there be but two ways in this life, there are but two abiding places after this life. To this Bristol answereth, although the argument be not mine, but an objection that Allen taketh on him to answer: First that in the wide way some go wider than some, with infinite variety, but all to damnation presently: Secondly in the narrow way, some go narrower than some with infinite variety, yet all in the narrow way: Ergo say I, all strait to salvation. Although in a way so narrow, that it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thrusting way, or a way, whose sides are thrust together, that there should be such infinite variety of narrowness, which must also import an infinite wideness, it is against all reason, and the word of the text. Wherefore it cannot be the way of merits but of faith.  
Another argument is of the text 2. Cor. 5. We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive in his body according to such things as he hath done either good or evil. Therefore the prayers or deeds of other men help not. To this he answereth out of Augustine, that the dead in our Lord, hath in his life deserved, that these works after his death might be profitable to him. Against which authority, he saith, I have no reply, to maintain that scripture against such prayer, but only oppose a saying of Hierom. I think the scripture itself is a sufficient reply against all authority of man. Every man shall receive according to his own works, and not according to the works of other men, as for the desert of man, it is nothing but unto damnation. And yet that argument is 〈…〉 ected by Allen, not framed by me.  
another argument I have of the judgement of God, 〈…〉 r. 85. If Purgatory be so necessary to satisfy Gods in 〈…〉 e by temporal pains of sinners according to the 〈…〉 e, etc. and Purgatory shall cease, as you affirm out 〈…〉 Augustine: How shall the same be satisfied in them 〈…〉 t die immediately before the day of judgement, so 〈…〉 t they have not had time enough there to be suffici 〈…〉 tly purged? The like may be demanded of all them 〈…〉 ich in a moment shallbe changed from mortality 〈…〉 immortality at the very coming of jesus Christ 〈…〉 to judgement? These are two doughty questions 〈…〉 yeth Bristol, for answer of which he asketh me, 〈…〉 here I find that principle in Allen? That Purgato 〈…〉 is necessary to satisfy according to the time. For 〈…〉 o'th' sir, Where he sayeth, if any debt remain to be dischar 〈…〉 d it must needs rise by proportion, weight, continuance, number 〈…〉 d quantity of the faults, whereby it must of necessity be indu 〈…〉 d, that because every man cannot have time to repay all in his 〈…〉 e, that there is all, or some part answerable in the world to 〈…〉 e. Here sir of faults we have proportion, weight, 〈…〉 ntinuance, number, quantity, therefore we must 〈…〉 ave satisfaction in purgatory according to propor 〈…〉 on, weight, continuance, number, quantity of them, 〈…〉 xcept you will as well deny the proportion, weight, number, & quantity of faults to be regarded in Purgatory, as the time. Wherefore if a great proportion of faults deserve a great proportion of punishment, heavy faults, heavy punishment, many faults, many stripes, great faults, great pains: what reason have you, why long continuance in faults should not deserve long continuance in Purgatory? You answer a short time in great pain, will satisfy for long penance in this life.  
But where is the continuance of sins by Allens necessity to be paid in proportion of long time in Purgatory? So that in effect, you answer, but without book that the furnace of Purgatory toward that 〈◊〉 of the world must be heated hot, because the souls 〈◊〉 tarry there the shorter time. With such inventions 〈◊〉 may answer any question. But I seek a resolution 〈◊〉 of the word of God, or good reason agreeable thereto.  
To the 2. question, you answer, it is not 〈◊〉 to God's mercy, to remit such punishment at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quest of his glorious Saints, as he now doth ●or 〈◊〉 Churches prayers. But seeing the Saints know not 〈◊〉 suddenness of that moment, how shall they pray for 〈◊〉 discharge of them that deserve to go to purgatory. 〈◊〉 they pray for it continually, why pray they not, as 〈◊〉 to discharge all other men from purgatory, as those th' 〈…〉 shall remain alive at the coming of Christ? And where you say it is not repugnant to his mercy, it is not the matter in question, but how it may stand with 〈◊〉 justice, which as you hold, requireth satisfaction by temporal punishment. For otherwise we know it standeth both with his justice, and his mercy, that they which obtain forgiveness of their sins by Christ, should immediately after their death be received into the fellowship of them that are likewise made righteous by him. Augustine is quoted De Ciu. Dei. lib. 21. Cap. 24. where the question is moved, but not answered, and yet the place is corrupted and enforced, as Ludovicus Vives confesseth. In that Chapter Augustine reasoneth, against them which held that God after the judgement, would release all the damned at the prayers of his saints. In the 27. Chapter, which he also quoteth, there is nothing to the question. 
Whether faith, hope, and Gods will, may stand with Purgatory. 
Bristol.    
This argument is gathered Pur. 381. If it be against the hope of Christians, to mourn for the dead, much 
Fulke.  more it is against the hope and faith of Christians, to pray for them. For by our prayer, we suppose them 〈…〉 e in misery, whom the word of God doth testify 〈…〉 e in happiness, to be at rest, to be with Christ. joh. Apoc. 14. Bristol answereth: those Scriptures prove that they be straightway in happiness, etc. as he 〈◊〉 showed, and I have showed the contrary, that they ●roue it, notwithstanding all his impudent cavilati 〈…〉. Secondly, he saith, it is not against hope to mourn, 〈◊〉 to mourn as the Gentiles, which know not the 〈…〉 rrection. Neither do I say that all mourning is a 〈…〉 st hope, but such mourning as supposeth them to 〈…〉 n misery, or to be lost, as the Papists, & Pagans 〈◊〉? Our mourning for the delay of the kingdom God, as he understandeth it, for the general resurre 〈…〉 n, is for our present misery, and therefore lawful 〈…〉 e joined with hope. But mourning for the dead, whose happiness the Scripture assureth us, is a 〈…〉 nst faith, therefore contrary to hope.  
〈…〉 neither argument in the same place is: All places 〈…〉 cripture that forbid prayers without faith, for 〈…〉 de prayers for the dead. For faith is an assurance 〈◊〉 of the word of God, etc.  
This argument (saith Bristol) supposeth, that the 〈…〉 de of God is only Scripture. Yea verily it suppo 〈…〉, that only Scripture is the warrant of God's word, we have before maintained and also answered, to 〈◊〉 Apocryphal Book of the Maccabees.  
A third argument is, Pur. 281. We learn out of Gods 〈…〉 rde, that whatsoever we pray for according to his 〈…〉 ll, we shall obtain. 1. john. 5. Prayers for the dead 〈◊〉 not according to the will of God, and therefore they 〈◊〉 not heard at al. Bristol denieth the minor, which he 〈…〉 th', I have not proved. Yes verily, I prove it because the 〈…〉 dgement followeth immediately after death: and in 〈…〉 dgement, God will hear no prayers. And therefore 〈…〉 istowes exposition for him that sinneth a sin not 〈…〉 to death, and shameful addition, Let him after his death 〈…〉 quest of Christ, and life shallbe given unto him, is false, and 〈…〉 surde, although he saith, he hath given the plain & smooth 〈…〉 se of the whole place, which is to be understood of men living and not of the dead. A smooth expos 〈…〉 If one see his brother sin, he must pray for him a 〈…〉 his death. Again, he urgeth the present temps, who 〈◊〉 knoweth his brother to sin a sin not to death, 〈◊〉 one (saith Bristol) that lived in schism, but yet 〈◊〉 reconciled before he died. O monstrous and more th' 〈…〉 palpable blindness! be these verbs, lived, reconc 〈…〉 died, of the present or preterperfect temps, which t 〈…〉 deniest the Apostle to have used. But omit the te 〈…〉 which he calleth him, a brother which liveth in schiss 〈…〉 How much more sound may I reason upon the present temps? Saint john biddeth us pray for a brother 〈…〉ning: but a brother sinning, is only living: therefore S. john biddeth us pray only for a brother living. For they that are in Purgarorie, neither deserve nor sin, by your own confession. As for the sin against the holy Ghost, which we say is not to be prayed for at all, he threateneth often, to confute in the 12. Chapter. In the mean time it is evident that Purgatory for any thing that is hitherto applied by Bristol, remaineth confuted by sufficient arguments and authority of the Scriptures. 
The fourth part concerning all other questions, that he mentioneth 
Bristol.  and first of good works in general, justification, & Free will.   
Remitting the questions of the witnesses of God's 
Fulke.  word, unto five motives in the 10. Chapter: where I allege that good works do not justify two places, one of Saint Paul, another of isaiah, he holdeth the contrary, that works do justify. And first calling me a falsary, because I recite not the very words of the Apostle, which was not my purpose, but to show what we do affirm out of that text of the Apostle, he saith, justification by works, is not denied by that text of Saint Paul, Rom. 3. We hold that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, for it is to be understood of works going before Baptism, and not of works following 〈…〉 aptisme, because Saint james saith a man is justified of corks and not of faith only. To this I answer 〈…〉 aren't Paul speaketh of justification before God: Saint 〈…〉 ames of justification before men. Saint Paul of a faith which worketh by love: Saint james of a bare know 〈…〉 edge, a barren and dead faith, a faith that is void of good works.  
And that Saint Paul speaketh generally of all good works, it is manifest by this reason, that he saith, boam 〈…〉 ting is excluded, not by the law of works, but by the 〈…〉 awe of faith: what manner of exclusion were it, to shut ●ut boasting for a moment, while one is baptised, and immediately after receive it again, by defending justification by works. Again he sayeth immediately after, ●t is one God which shall justify circumcision which is of faith, and uncircumcision through faith, that is the circum 〈…〉 ised, & the uncircumcised are all justified by faith, as A●raham in both the states was justified by faith, without the works of the law, although, (as james saith) he was justified before men, by his oblation, which was but a 〈…〉 rial of his faith, and obedience. Where the Apostle 〈…〉 ayeth, Tit. 3. not by the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own great mercy, 〈…〉 e saved us by baptism: Bristol asketh, if I mark the temps. Yea, very well, he speaketh of works before faith. And doth it therefore follow, that works done after faith, do justify? Saint Paul extendeth the salvation (which is sealed unto us by the laver of new birth, and renewing of the holy Ghost, which he hath poured richly upon us by jesus Christ our saviour, unto eternal life: therefore it followeth, that being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Upon the 2. text Es. 64. I said: the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silk, which is the justification of saints, made white in the blood of the lamb, but with the filthy rags of man's righteousness. Bristol asketh where I learned, to call the good works done in the Church, the filthy rags of man's righteousness? Verily, even of isaiah who speaketh in the person of the Church: All we are as an unclean person, and all our righteousness, as filthy rags. For although God accept our works, that are done in faith, and pardon their imperfection, yet when they are obtruded unto him, to justify us, he abhorreth them, as in the Pharisee Luke 18. That the justifications of the Saints. Apoc. 19 are good works, Bristol would have it appear by conference of 1. john. 3. He that worketh justice is just, where he reasoneth of the effects of a just man, & not of the cause. No flesh is just by works of the law, but by faith, by which God maketh just, even the ungodly man. But how much better conference is it, to know, what the white 〈◊〉 meaneth, which is the justification of saints, to compare it with other places of the same prophecy, as Apoc. 7. where it is showed, how the stoles of the faithful are made white, with the blood of the lamb, and with the place of Saint Paul showing how the Church is made white, and without spot and wrinkle by the death of Christ? Ephe. 5.  
Touching free-will, I said, we believe, that man after his fall, hath not free will, no not aptness of will to think any thing that is good. 2. Cor. 3. Bristol translateth the word, we are not sufficient, but the text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are not apt, to think any thing of ourselves as of ourselves, but our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aptness, is of God. To this Bristol replieth, that natural free will is not taken from us, nor natural aptness of will. I hope he speaketh like a Philosopher, and not like a flat Pelagian. But I speak as a Christian of the freedom of man's will unto good, which is none but bondage unto evil, except he be regenerate, and then is his will framed of God in part, to good, but not perfectly in this life, as regeneration is not perfectly finished before the redemption of our bodies: as for freedom opposite to coaction, if Bristol mean that, by retaining of free will, I grant every man's will to be free from constraint, but not from servility unto sin. Whereof Saint complaineth, Rom 7.  
Moreover I said Pur. 35. how should your free will 〈…〉 e maintained, if God's spirit have any place, that di 〈…〉 ributeth to every one according to the good pleasure 〈…〉 f his own will? 1. Cor. 12. Bristow'S answer is, that God can work his own will upon our wills, which is 〈…〉 ery true, but without working of God's spirit, our will 〈…〉 ath no aptness unto any good thing. Again he saith, 〈…〉 hat Saint Paul speaketh of the gifts, that are freely gi' 〈…〉 en, and not of them, that make a man acceptable, as 〈…〉 hough there were any gifts, which are not freely given. And it is evident that he speaketh generally of all working of God's spirit, even of confessing jesus to be Christ, and not of special graces only. So that Bristow'S answer is nothing to the purpose, or matter 〈…〉 n question. For I hold, that we have no aptness unto 〈…〉 ny good, of our own free-will, but only of the grace of God. Bristol saith, I imagine that God is not omni 〈…〉 otent, if we have wills of our own, which I never 〈…〉 enied: but that we have wills of out own unto good, before they be framed thereto by God's spirit, is the thing 〈◊〉 deny.  
About good works in special, namely prayer to saints, 
Bristol.  〈…〉 astinge, merits.  
Concerning invocation of Saints, I said Purg. 451. 
Fulke.  we call not upon Saints, because we believe not in them: for how should we call upon them in whom we believe not? Rom. 10. To this (reserving a pretended contradiction to the proper place) he saith: first that Saint Paul, did often invocate & call upon the faithful, beseeching them to pray for him, which is a toy to mock with an Ape, for Saint Paul did not invocate or pray to them as unto them that knew his heart, and could help his grief, but only of charity desireth their prayers. Secondly he asketh, where is any Scripture, that we must believe in God only? Forsooth, amongst many, this shall suffice, which is written in jeremy Cap. 17. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and his heart departeth from the Lord. But that it is lawful to bêleve in Saints also, Bristol quoteth Exod. 14. where it is said, the people believed God, and Moses his servant, as though there were no difference between giving credit to God's Prophets, and believing in them, which is to put our trust in them. The like I say to the second place, quoted 2. Par. 20. where josaphat promiseth all things prosperous to the people, if they give credit to God's Prophets, Credit Prophetis eius. But forlaking his vulgar authentical translation, he provoketh us to the Hebrew, belike because of the preposition, beth, which is a miserable shift: Seing the Hebrew phrase is well known, to differ from the Latin, and English phrase, and especially from the sense of believing, that is trusting in God, which is peculiar to him and ought not to be in any creature, which is not God.  
He quoteth also Philemon, whose love & faith the Apostle commendeth towards the Lord jesus, and towards all his Saints, where every wise man seethe that faith is referred to Christ, and love to the Saints. But the scripture reacheth him to believe (he saith) in Christ according to his humanity and namely in his blood. john. 14. Rom. 3. He will prove an Arian or a Nestorian shortly. The place of john proveth the divinity of Christ, because he is to be believed on, even as God. And where the Apostle saith, that God hath made Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood, he meaneth not that we must believe in the blood of Christ, as it is a creature, but that the death and bloodshedding of Christ, is the mean of our reconciliation unto God. But the Nicene Creed & Hieronyme, contra Lucif. use the phrase of Credere in Ecclesiam, to believe in the Church. I answer, they mean no more thereby, than they which use the distinction Credere in Deum, Credere Deo, & Credere Deum, which Bristol saith hath deceived me. Augustine (as Bristol confesseth) maketh it proper to God, that we believe in him  
We believe not in Peter, we believe not in Paul. In john. 129. Neither saith the Nicene Creed, or Hieronyme contrary thereto, that we should put our whole trust and confidence in the Church, but in God only. Therefore although they speak otherwise then Augustine, they mean not otherwise then he. Ruffinus also in his exposition of the Creed, writeth both plainly and effectually: Sequitur namque post, etc. For it followeth after this saying: The holy Catholic Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body: he saith not in the holy Catholic Church, in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the flesh. For if he had added, the preposition, In, the sense should have been made one, and the same with the former articles. But even in those terms truly, where faith is ordered of the divinity, it is said, in God the father, and in Christ his son, and in the holy Ghost. But in the rest, where the speech is not of the Godhead, but of creatures and the mysteries, the preposition, In, is not added, that it should be said we must believe in the holy Church, but the holy Church: not as God, but as the Church gathered into God. And that men should believe, that there is remission of sins, not in the remission of sins, that they should believe the resurrection of the body, not in the resurrection of the body. Therefore by this syllable of the Preposition, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine, are separated from things human.  
Nevertheless, Bristol saith, they believe both in God, in Christ and in his Saints, and invocate them all, though not all alike, but then let him hear, what Cyprian saith, De duplici Martyrio. Non credit in Deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius faelicitatis suae fiduciam. He believeth not in God, which placeth not in him alone, the hope of his whole felicity. Whereupon it followeth, that they which believe in saints, & place some part of their hope of felicity in them, & not in God alone, by his judgement, & by the judgement of the Apostle also believe not in God. Where I said, if Saints also are to be invocated, than God alone knoweth not the hearts of all men, and God only is not to be worshipped and served, and Christ is not our only Mediator and Advocate: Bristol calleth it jangling, without allegations. I supposed these principles had been sufficiently known to every learned Papist, without allegations, but seeing Bristol will not take knowledge of them, because he knoweth not how to shift his hands of them. For the first, my allegation shall be 1. Reg. 8. Solomon in his prayer saith unto God: What prayers or supplications shallbe made of any man, or of all thy people Israel, when every one shall know the plague in his own heart, and stretch forth his hands in this house, Hear thou then in heaven in thy dwelling place, and be merciful, and do and give every man according to all his ways as thou knowest his heart, for thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. For the second, that God only is to be worshipped and served, it is the saying of our saviour Christ, Math. 4. & Luke 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
That Christ only is our Mediator and Advocate, Saint Paul testifieth 1. Timoth. 2. there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man jesus Christ, in which place he speaketh of Prayer, supplications, intercessions, etc. to be made for all men. And Saint john 1. joh. 2. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the father jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins. But, saith Brist, as I say to Ambrose, & others whom I confess to be of the true Church, so must I say it to Saint john Apoc. 1. for invocating the holy Angels. But I find not that john did invocate the holy Angels, in that place, although the seven spirits from whom he wisheth grace, should not be the holy Ghost, but Angels the ministers of the holy Ghost. For he that prayeth that God will send rain from heaven, doth not invocate heaven. But I must say the same to God himself, for making an Angel to be worshipped as Apoc. 3. as he hath told me in the. 6. Chapter, where I have told him mine answer. likewise to the Angel Apoc. 8. Which made a perfume with the prayers of Saints, and to the 24. Seniors which had sweet odours, that is, prayers in bowls, etc. But there is no such need, the Angel Apoc. 8. representeth Christ, the only high priest that hath authority to stand at the altar in heaven, and offer incense, and to present the prayers of the Church, that they may be acceptable to God. Heb. 13. The Elders are the Church of God, in the whole world, whose prayers and supplications, only our saviour Christ maketh acceptable. But it maketh nothing against our Mediator to God, saith Bristol, though we are and have never so many Mediators, so that all make suit to God by him. Then it maketh no matter how many petty Gods we have, so one be principal, as Plato taught. Again he saith: it is nothing against God alone, to be worshipped, so that we worship none but for him. If this were true, it were lawful to worship the Devil, because he is God's minister, and hath great power under him: yea our Saviour Christ had not answered his temptation, when he required to be worshipped, as one that had all the glory of the world committed by God to him to bestow at his pleasure, in saying it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Last of all, he saith it is nothing against God above, to know our hearts, so that all others know them by him. But Solomon reasoneth that God only is to be called upon, because he only knoweth the hearts of all men. And where findeth Bristol, that all others, or any one by God, knoweth the hearts of all men? To conclude, the word only, excludeth no more with Bristol, than he list to admit by his blind distinctions, which if they may be permitted against the plain sense and words of the Scriptures, nothing shallbe left proper to God, nothing proper to our Saviour Christ, nothing proper to any thing, that the Scripture maketh peculiar unto it.  
The next title is fasting, about which Bristol reporteth, that I say: Purg. 391. You are they that attend to spirits of errors, & doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, & abstaining, or commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. 1. Tim. 4. There is the brandmarke of Romish religion, that all the water in Tiberis, nor in the Ocean sea, shall not be able to wash out. Against this: Soft a little (sayeth Bristol) and you shall see me draw enough & enough again, even out of your own puddle, to wash all sufficiently. But what draweth he? I confess that Aerius & jovinian condemned fasting or fasting days? what then? Abstinence from certain meats is a question distinct from fasting, which is abstinence from all meats. But jovinian (sayeth he) taught abstinence from certain meats to profit nothing. Well: Aerius contrariwise taught abstinence from flesh to be a religious matter, as you Papists do. For to abstain from wine, flesh, fish, spices, fruits, or any thing which pertaineth to sobriety, is not to think it unlawful to eat or drink any of these, at this time, or that time, as it is thought of you Papists, and a matter of more holiness, to fill your belly with fish, then with flesh, although the fish, wine, fruits, spices, and such like confections as you eat, be ten times more dangerous unto sobriety and chastity, than a piece of beefy or bacon, which a poor man eateth on a friday to satisfy his hunger, and giveth God thanks for it. Your public admitting of all incentive meats & drinks, except flesh or white meat on your fasting days, sufficiently declareth, that neither fasting nor chastisement of men's bodies is your intent: but as the Apostle sayeth, false speaking in hypocrisy. But whom and what doth Saint Paul mean (sayeth Bristol?) He answereth, the Manichees, the Tacianistes, and other heretics, which said, that certain meats were the creatures of the devil. Nay Bristol, not them only, nor principally; but all other heretics that said, flesh was unclean, although they confessed it to be the creature of God, as the Aeriaus and Priscillianistes, and specially the Papists, which under pretence of holiness, as fasting and chastity, command to abstain from meats and marriage. For they that abstain from these things, saying they are the creatures of the devil, speak not a lie in hypocrisy, but an open blasphemy. As for the example of them, whose voluntary abstinence from meats or marriage, Saint Augustine defendeth, contra Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. cannot excuse you, which forbidden meats and marriage, more imperiously to some men at all times, and to all men at some times, then ever the Manichees did to their clergy, or priests, which they called perfect ones.  
Another saying of mine, Art. 46. Bristol repeateth: If jovinian taught that fasting, abstinence from certain meats, and other bodily exercises, of themselves profit little, his doctrine agreeth with the doctrine of Saint Paul, 1. Timothy. 4. But if he taught, as he is charged, that such things profit nothing at all, we agree not with him in that opinion.  
To this (Bristol sayeth) I would fain wipe mine hands of jovinians heresy, but it will not be: For his heresy was, that fasting and abstinence is not more meritorious than eating with thanksgiving. If you call this heresy, I am nothing ashamed of it: there is no more merit in the one than in the other. But how prove you that was his heresy? Forsooth Augustine De dogm. Eccles. Cap. 68 so sayeth. But who shall grant unto him, that bastard collection to be of Saint Augustine's penning? Well then the undoubted Augustine, ad Quodvult enim sayeth: meritis adaequabat, he made equal to the merits, of chaste and faithful matrimonies, the virginity, etc.  
But he that is acquainted with Saint Augustine's writings, shall perceive that by merits, often times he meaneth not as the Papists do, the desert of good works, but the dignity, excellency, commendation. For merits in that signification as the Papists use, he always condemneth them in the Pelagians, and all other, saying that God crowneth or rewardeth in us his gifts, not our merits. For our merits are nothing but sins in Psal. 70. Con. 2. in Psa. 101. in Psa. 144.  
Now have we to see, what Saint Paul calleth bodily exercise. Bristol saith: walking, riding, hunting, hawking, and such like exercises, used for preservation of men's bodies. And think you Timothy, which to chastise his body, used to abstain from wine, was doubted of S. Paul, lest he should give himself overmuch to walking, riding, hawking, hunting? At least wise, hear what S. Ambrose writeth upon the text, Exercitium autem corporale, etc. He saith, that bodily exercise is profitable to little. For to fast and abstain from meats, the authority of the creator remaining, doth not profit much, except godliness be added unto these things, etc. Let Bristol s●ye, that S Ambrose knew not white from black, as he saith of me, and look better to his conference, of S. Paul's abstinence, 1. Cor. 9 from all things the were offensive. But where he concludeth, the measure of all abstinence is to tame the body, and bring it in subjection to the spirit, but with such moderation, that it faint not in our necessary work, I agree with him, that so it ought to be, but that so it is not, nor yet intended in the popish commandment of abstinence, as I have showed before sufficiently: As for the fasting of that children of the bridegroom, like to the fasts prescribed by the disciples of Saint john, and of the Pharisees, it is impertinent to speak of, where the question is not of Christian fasting, but of apostatical abstinence from meats and marriage: although Christian fasting, is nothing like to the Pharisaical fasting, but only in refraining from meat, in the end and manner altogether differing and unlike. Math. 6. Luke. 18. 
About the Sacraments in general. 
Bristol.    
Of the Sacraments in general, I say: Pur. 450. We 
Fulke.  ●eleeue that there are but two sacraments of the new testament, baptism, and the lords supper, instituted by Christ. 1. Cor. 10. Bristol asketh, if these be sacraments of the new testament instituted by Christ, which Saint Paul speaketh of baptism in the cloud and s●●, and of the spiritual meat and drink in Manna and the rock. Because he doth only ask, it shall suffice to answer only, yea, they are sacraments of the new testament, and instituted by Christ, the mediator of the new testament, by which our fathers were saved, although by Christ coming in the flesh, they were instituted differing somewhat in external form and matter, though in inward grace and signification they were all one.  
Secondly, supposing they are sacraments of the new testament, by Christ instituted, he asketh what reason ●t is, to argue of one place negatively, only two are ●amed, ergo only two are instituted. I answer, the argument is not of the only naming of two, but of the whole argument of the Apostle, which is, to prove, that ●he fathers in participation of the sacraments, were equal with us, which were not sufficiently proved, if having named only two, there were other five, wherein we are superior to them: So that the naming of two, is in this place the excluding of all other except those two. Now let us discuss Bristow'S reasons for the number of Sacraments to be seven. We read of the other five in other places. Where I pray you? Of Confirmation, john the 7. You read more than I can find there named or signified, except you mean of the increase of God's spirit in more excellent and evident graces, which the faithful should receive after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, which differeth far from confirmation of children by imposition of hands.  
Of Penance, you read john. 20. Of power given to the Apostles to remit and retain sins: I read but of auricular confession and satisfaction, I read not.  
Of extreme unction, you read jac. 5: of anointing the sick with oil, which by a special gift recovered health of body, as well as remission of sins, at the prayer of the faithful, I read: but of anealing men desperately sick, which hath no hope of bodily recovery, I read not.  
Of orders, you read, Math. 26. but I read nothing at all, although I read that the Apostles were commanded to continue the celebration of his supper instituted by him, which were before ministers of his sacraments and preachers of his word; but of Bennet and Collet, conjuror, subdeacon, or mass priest, I read not in all the Scripture, nor of Deacon in that Chapter.  
Of Matrimony, both yet and I read Math. 19 but not instituted at that time by Christ, but long before in Paradise, and is no more a sacrament of the new testament, than the rainbow, which yet with the covenant thereof remaineth in use among Christians. But you confess you read not in those places, that they are sacraments, no more do you read, 1. Cor. 10. that baptism, or the lords supper are sacraments or any where else. This is a stolen quarrel, of the name of sacraments, which is not found in Scripture, although the thing signified by the name, that is the seals of God's promises, and the name of sign of God's covenants be often found.  
But your last refuge is, that the Apostle speaketh only of the first entrance into Christianity, which in antiquity was by baptism, confirmation, the complement of baptism, and the eucharist, and therefore speaketh not of the rest. Beside that this fantasy is manifestly contrary to the Apostles purpose, which was to show, that the external sacraments of God's grace, without a godly life, would not serve to assure us, that God was pleased withus: it is clear, that the Corinthians, among whom Saint Paul so long had preached, could not be without all other sacraments, if any other were. They had children to be confirmed, they themselves were married, elders were to be ordered, offenders by penance were to be reconciled, many were sick, and some were fallen a sleep, to be anealed. And Saint Paul saith expressly, they were behind in no grace or gift of God's spirit. 1. Corinth. 1. Wherefore, that they were young novices newly entered the bars, and not knights exercised in battle, it is a dream of Bristow'S drowsy head, and no truth to be verified of the Corinthians.  
Secondly I say, of the sacraments in general, that they give not grace ex opere operato, of the work wrought, but after the faith of the receiver and according to the election of Go●. 〈◊〉. Corin. 10. Again, how should the sacrament give grace of the work wrought, if faith were requisite in them that receive them? This argument, saith Bristol, holdeth aswell against the working of Christ's passion. Why sir, the passion of Christ giveth not grace, but to the faithful and elect of God.  
But faith, you say, is no work, nor instrument, but only a dispofition as dryness in wood, that the fire worketh upon. I will not enter into any philosophical disputation with you, whether it be dryness or moisture in the wood that the fire worketh upon, perhaps you think, that water is moister than air, which error, if you had no more, cannot make you an heretic.  
But I marvel, what cause you will make faith, seeing you exclude it from efficients, except you make it a matter, for the sacraments to work upon, or else I know not what you mean by that your disposition like dryness in wood, which in deed is the thin air, more apt to receive inflammations, than the thick water, but perhaps you make it only a potentia, like materia prima, for you add, that by our indisposition we do not put obicem.  
But you hold that the sacraments give grace of the work wrought, without the good motion of the user, only so he do no part obicem, that is, so he do not withstand the working, as if a man be baptized sleeping, and thinking nothing of it. Nevertheless seeing the scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in us by faith, faith must needs be an instrumental efficient, when you have said all that you can, except you will teach us new grammar and Lògike. You confess the scripture saith, that by believing and other good actions, we work our own salvation, Phil. 2. as by way of meriting, but it saith not that we work the effect of any sacrament: neither do I say, that we work the effect of any sacrament, but that God worketh in us according to faith, which he giveth us, and his election. You say further; that the scripture teacheth, that the passion of Christ giveth to our deeds virtue to merit: where is that scripture written? for until you show me where it is written, I will say still to you as I said to Allen, the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemy, believing steadfastly, that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption of Christ jesus, without respect of our works. Rom. 3. 4.  
But yet Bristol will make men believe, that I show manifold ignorance, where I say Purg. 35. The mean on God's behalf by which we are made partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion, and so graffed into his body, is his holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest and assuring of our inheritance: who worketh in us faith, as the only mean by which the righteousness of Christ is applied unto us, Ephe. 1. And as for the sacraments, (which you seem to make the only conduits of God's mercy) we are taught in the holy scriptures that they are the seals of Gods promises given for the confirmation of our faith, as was circumcision to Abraham, when he was justified before through faith. Rom. 4.  
Bristow'S eyes being dazzled at the clear light of this truth, turneth his head away from the matter, and wrangleth against diverse points of Caluinisme, as he saith, but in deed of mere Bristowisme. For Calvin never held any such matter as he imagineth: He asketh whether this be to say, that all men are justified before they come to the sacrament, as though Calvin said they were. Whereas a great number are justified neither before, nor after the receipt of them. But this is to say, that as Abraham was justified by faith, without respect of the sacrament, so are all they that are justified, justified by faith, without respect of the sacrament. Secondly he asketh, whether all sacraments be seals of such a matter. Yea verily, or else saint Paul proveth the justification of the Gentiles by faith, very feebly, after the example of Abraham. Thirdly he asketh whether all jews were justified, before they came to circumcision, which I never heard any man to affirm, but that as many jews as were justified, were justified by faith, as Abraham was, circumcision no more regarded in their justification, than it was in the justification of Abraham. Last of all he asketh, whether circumcision were to the jews a seal of such a matter? still he calleth it such a matter, because he dare not name justification by faith. O the sting of a wicked conscience. But to the question. I answer that to the jews which were justified by faith, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, which is imputed to them, as it was to Abraham without merit, or respect of their circumcision.  
Other points of mine ignorance, he saith, are about the holy spirit of promise, whereof Saint Paul speaketh Ephe. 1. which I say is the mean, to make us partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion: Item the mean to graff us into his body: Item, that it worketh in us faith. In the conclusion, he noteth the ignorance of the Protestants, where they hold, this spirit promised to be nothing else, but the gift of tongues, that is to say, Christ's greatest gift, to be his least gift. Out upon the shameless liar, which of the Protestants canst thou name, that so holdeth? We all hold that the holy spirit of promise, Ephes. 1. is the spirit of adoption, by which we are assured of eternal life. Rom. 8. And as for the spirit, prophesied by joel, and john Baptist, promised by Christ to be sent after his ascension, we hold not to be specially of the spirit of adoption, which the Apostles & all the faithful had before Christ's death, and much less of that spirit, which your Bishops give by imposition of hands, in their counterfeit confirmation, which is the spirit of vanity, whose fruits appear not in any of the receivers: But we hold that promised gift of God's spirit, to be that wonderful revelation of knowledge and understanding & utterance in all states & degrees of true Christians generally, beside a great number of particular gifts, not perpetual, bestowed upon the Church in diverse special members, for the certifying thereof in the first publishing of the gospel. As for your conference of scriptures, whereof you prate so much, is a mere confusion of matters of diverse senses. According to which manner of conference, not weighing the sense of every place, by the proper circumstances thereof, but following only a sound and similitude of some words, every heretic might colour his heresy, were it never so absurd, as the Valentinians of whom Irenaeus testifieth, that they patched diverse sentences together, to make a show, as though their heresy were contained in holy write: which was nothing else, but as if a man breaking a goodly image of a king in pieces, should of the piece after his own manner joined together, make the image of a dog, or a fox or other foul beast, Iren. lib. 1. Chapt. 1. such is your conference of the spirit of promise, wherewith the faithful are sealed Ephes. 1. with the spirit of tongues and prophecy which came upon the twelve, on whom saint Paul laid his hands. Acts 19 The last error of faith he chargeth me, to be the only mean, which he saith, is no mean but a disposition, he thinketh it sufficiently discovered before, whereunto I also think that I have made answer sufficiently. 
About the sacraments in special. The necessity and effect of baptism. 
Bristol.    
Concerning baptism, I say it is necessary for all christians 
Fulke.  to receive, that are not by necessity excluded from it. 1. Pet. 3. Bristol saith, it is necessary for all men, but when it cannot be actually had, the effectual desire of it supplieth the want: which desire infants have not, and therefore only the actual having of baptism, doth quicken them in Christ, being dead in Adam. Touching the salvation of infants of the faithful dying without baptism, I said nothing but by implication, that there is no such necessity of Baptism, that the want of the outward sacrament should condemn the seed of the faithful, pertaining to god's election & covenant, where there is no default, either of contempt or neglect of it. Ro. 9 Goe 17. And seeing Bristol alloweth the effectual desire in men of years to supply the want, which yet the words of his text, jam. 3. of which he taketh colour and authority of his doctors, that condemn all unbaptised infants will not bear, what reason is it, why he should not extend his supply, unto the effectual desire of those infants, parents, and friends, whose faith he acknoledgeth to supply the want of actual faith in the infants that are baptized? Beside this he saith that he did mark well enough where I said that the sacraments give grace according to the election of God. As though all infants baptized, & so dying be not of Gods elect, or that some be not saved, although they be baptized, & asketh what scripture I have for this gear? But in deed he bowleth at the wrong mark, for in saying that the sacraments took effect according to the faith of the receiver and according to gods election, I meant, that God in baptism giveth grace to infants, which have no actual faith of their own, according to his eternal election in mercy. But whether all infants baptized & so dying be of the number of gods elect, as I do not know, so I will not contend. But this I know, that if they were not elected of God before the foundations of the world were laid, the receiving of baptism, cannot make them Gods elect. Ephe. 1. Where Bristol urgeth the saying of saint Peter, 1. Pet. 3. baptism saveth us now, it is a weak argument to prove the baptism of infants, either to save them all that receive it, or to condemn all that receiveth it not. For explicating him self of what baptism he speaketh, he addeth, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as you would say, outward washing, which is the external sacrament, but the interrogation of a good conscience towards God, which is the thing signified by outward washing, and yet not found in infants, but in them that have knowledge, among whom, whosoever hath it not, he shall no more be saved then any was preserved from drowning that was not in the Ark of Noah. In which Ark one at least was saved from bodily drowning, which was not inwardly baptized with the spirit unto salvation. The figure of whom, I might urge as probable as Bristol doth of the whole number saved, from drowning, like unto whom all they that are baptized are brought into the visible Church, although some with Cham, are not members of the mystical body of Christ. 
Real presence transubstantiation.   
Touching the Eucharist I said, Christ is present at 
Bristol.  his supper, but not after a gross and Capernaicall manner 
Fulke.  but as he was present in Manna to the fathers. 1. Cor. 10. Bristow'S answer is, it was a spiritual meat, a spiritual drink, for it signified Christ. But Saint Paul saith expressly it was Christ, and the Rock was Christ. But, est, is, taken for significat, where it pleaseth the Papists, where it pleaseth them not, it is blasphemy, impudency, falsification etc. Further he saith, they all did eat one, and the same meat, but not that they and we eat one, & the same meat. Although Saint Augustine is clear, they did eat one, and the same that we eat, yet I will prove it by argument out of the Scripture, that which we eat and that which they did eat was, & is Christ, ergo they and we eat one and the same meat, even as they were baptized with the same baptism: for the church of God never had but one baptism. As for the Capernaites, he saith, I understand not the chapter, john 6. and so only telleth his fantasy upon it. But what mine understanding is of that chapter, & also mine answer to all popish reasons, falsely gathered thereout: let it appear in my confutation of Heskins & Sanders.  
Concerning transubstantiation, I said, Of all follies this is the greatest, that when the Papists have prated never so long of the sacrifice of bread and wine, at the last they will have no bread nor wine in their sacrifice. First he saith, this wise argument, proveth the papists & their fathers the old writers, to be fools. To this I reply, those old writers, which are none of the papists fathers, although they supposed Melchizedechs' bread and wine, to be a figure of our sacrament, yet they were not such fools to deny bread and wine to remain in our sacrament. But for answer, Bristol saith, that I myself confess, that the drink of the water of the rock, was a figure of our drink in Christ's Chalice, although that were water, & this is no water, no nor made of water, how much more, might Melchizedechs' bread and wine be a figure of it, although there be no bread nor wine in it, considering it was made of bread and wine, and retaineth the forms of bread and wine? etc. But where hath he this confession of mine? I never said the water of the Rock was a figure of Christ's cup, but even Christ's cup itself, and the very blood of Christ in a sacrament, to the faithful, as the wine in the cup is to us. For Christ did even then feed his true members with his flesh & blood unto eternal life. john. 6. 
Marriage of Votaries: as Bishops, Priests, Deacons.   
Because we say, the marriage of votaries is sin and 
Bristol.  no marriage. Fulke saith, we are the forbidders of marriage, 
Fulke.  that saint Paul speaketh off. 1. Tim. 4. But this saith Bristol, I have showed to pertain to the Eucratites, & Manichees &c. and I have showed that it pertaineth more properly to the Papists. But saint Augustine answereth them & Fulke at once, saith Bristol, Cont. Faust. lib. 30. Cap. 6. Ille prohibet nubere, qui hoc malum esse dicit: He forbiddeth to marry, that saith it is a naughty thing, non qui huic bono aliud melius, anteponit, and not he, which to this good thing, preferreth an other better thing. Well, if he forbid to marry and to teach the doctrine of Devils, which saith marriage is a naughty thing, than you Papists, which (as you confessed before) say that the marriage of votarics is sin, say it is a naughty thing, and consequently forbidding to marry do teach the doctrine of Devils: neither can you shift a way to say, you do not affirm, that which is marriage indeed, to be a sin but that which is falsely called marriage: for you say even as the Manichees in this point, it is a naughty thing, for the Clergy, and them that be in holy orders to marry, and therefore you compel them to the vow, and forbid marriage to all that will enter into those orders, and also into moonkery, which you call religion, as though holiness and religion could not stand with marriage. And therefore to you, as well as to the Manichees Saint Augustine speaketh in the. 4. Chapter of that Book, in defence of the catholic Church which in his time forbade not marriage, nor compelled any to virginity. Hoc nobis primum responde●tis velim, etc. I would you should answer this thing first unto us, whither it be the doctrine of Devils to make any virgins at all, or only to make them by prohibition of marrying? if by prohibition, it pertaineth nothing to us, for we ourselves do judge it as foolish a thing to stay one that is willing (to be a virgin) as it is a wicked & very ungodly thing to compel one that is unwilling. As for the preferring of virginity, in them that have the gift, and for whom it is convenient, for setting forth of the kingdom of God, before marriage, according to the doctrine of Saint Paul, we agree with Saint Augustine and dissent from jovinian, if his doctrine were as it is reported. But if jovinian taught (as I said) Ar. 45. that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity, should nevertheless be married, this was the doctrine of Saint Paul, it is better to marry then to burn. And although Ambrose & Augustine, account such marriage to be adultery, or worse than adultery, yet the holy Ghost saith: marriage is honourable in all men and the bed undefiled. Heb. 13. And for them that cannot contain, although they have vowed virginity, it is better to marry then to burn, 1. Cor. 7. except Bristol think it better to quench the fire of lust, with fornication and uncleanness: For all men cannot contain, neither can all men make themselves chaste for the kingdom of God. Math 19, But this conference of Scripture pleaseth not Bristol, for he counteth it none at all, comparing me for want of conference of scripture to a cloud without water: well then, let us hear what sweet dew cometh from Bristow'S cloud.  
First he asketh what it is to burn. He answereth, to be troubled with the pricking of the flesh, say the heretics. Not so, say we: for Saint Paul himself was troubled much, with such pricking, 2. Corin. 12. and yet he was not bidden to marry, when he prayed so instantly against it, but it was said unto him by Christ, My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is perfected in infirmity, etc. First he belieth us, whom he calleth heretics, to say that to burn, is nothing else but to be troubled with the pricking of the flesh: for we hold, there is no praise of virginity, where there is no natural provocation unto lust. But to burn we say, is to be so troubled, as men are, that are inflamed with lust, and have no lawful means to quench the same.  
Secondly, behold how shamefully he slandereth Saint Paul, to be much troubled with such pricking of the flesh, where he complaineth of the general rebellion of the flesh, against the spirit, the messenger of Satan to buffet him, even that law of his members, of which he complaineth Rom. 7. which brought him captive under the law of sin. As for that pricking, which Bristol speaketh of to be so much in a body so exercised with afflictions and travels, with hunger, and fastings, and in a man of such age, as Saint Paul was at that time, when he wrote unto the Corinthians the second Epistle, it is altogether incredible. And confessing a general rebellion of the flesh, against the spirit unto all sin, it is not probable that he should in this place, complain of that one kind only, from which age and weakness of body would privilege him, if godly exercise did not rid him. What is it then to burn, saith Bristol, or to be burned? saint Paul himself telleth us, it is, not to contain: If they do not contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn, for marriage is honourable and undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. The conference whereof is this: Let married folk use their own bed, etc. and let the unmarried folk enter into marriage, rather than not to contain, to burn, to commit fornication. So that to burn, not to contain, and to commit fornication, by Bristow'S conference, is all one: So that he which committeth not fornication, although he be continually inflamed with filthy lust, yet by Bristow'S judgement, he burneth not, he is continent, he is a virgin. Again, if not to contain, and to burn be nothing else, but to commit fornication, it would follow in saint Paul's words, that men are not commanded to marry, before they have made trial of their incontinence by committing fornication, which seeing it is horrible absurdity: it followeth, that the Apostle to prevent fornication, exhorting men to marry which contain not, seeing it is better to marry then to burn, understandeth incontinence and burning, for an inflammation of lust, without fornication, or actual filthiness committed.  
But whatsoever saint Paul speaketh of marriage of them that do not contain, he meaneth it of such as have made no vow to live unmarried. For of those that have vowed, his sentence is (saith Bristol) that they incur damnation if they marry, because they have broken their first faith: 1. Tim. which faith with S. Augustine he understandeth for their last vow of widowhood, notwithstanding, that I showed, both by conference in the same chapter, by the title of, first, and by the name of faith, that it cannot properly be so taken, but for the faith of Christianity, even as he saith: if any provide not for his family, he hath denied the faith. Where I find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture is never used for a vow or promise made to God. Bristol answereth, why? do not you say yourself, that both there & once afore in the same chapped. it is used for the vow or promise made in baptism? no sir. I never said it. I said that the first faith may aptly be taken for the faith of baptism, and Christianity, except you will say that the faith of Christianity embraced by baptism, is nothing else but a vow or promise made to God. Again, can you remember never a place (saith he) where the faith of god is the promise of God? look Rom. 3. yea sir, I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the truth of God's promise, but I find not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for the vow or promise made to God, which because you yourself, so great and daily a conferrer of scriptures, could not find, you cur●olled my saying, repeating my words for a vow or promise, and leaving out that I added, made to God. The Latin phrase of the faith or promise of marriage used by Saint Augustine and other Latin writers, answereth not to my demand, of the use of the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scriptures: which if the Apostle had taken for the promise of widowhood made in their admission, it is more like he would have called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their former faith, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their first faith. Again the conference which Bristol urgeth, of them that are already turned back after Satan, most aptly agreeth to them that had forsaken not only their widowhood, but also their Christianity, Lo, saith Bristol, yourself are compelled to grant, that which you denied, to wit that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhood? and how forsake they widowhood but by marrying? ergo, Saint Paul saith they shall be damned for marrying: so invincible is the text, in our exposition. Fulke, it goeth hard with you. And all this, because I said such wanton young housewives, proceed so far, that at length they forsake widowhood, Christianity and al. Said I only because they forsake widowhood? No, but because they wax wanton against Christ, because they have forsaken the first faith, which is Christianity, and not only because they have married, and given over their widowhood: whereof whether there were a vow or no, it is not proved. Although it be probable, there was a promise made unto the Church, because such poor widows sustained of the Church's alms, were employed to be helpers 1. Cor. 12. in the office of Deacons. Rom. 16. Considering that it was not sufficient for the sick and impotent, that men should be collectors and distributers of the alms, but women also were necessary, for divers services about them which were not convenient for men to exercise. But if I should grant unto you, that the first faith here, signifieth the last vow of widowhood, yet it followeth not of this place, that all that have married after rash vows made to the contrary, are damned. For Saint Paul speaketh not of them that were constrained by the necessity of incontinency (which it is not every man's gift to avoid) to fly to the general remedy appointed by God, for avoiding of fornication, that every man should have his wife, and every woman should have her husband, without any exception: but only of them he speaketh, that waxed wanton against Christ, which being living to the world, were dead to God. What is this against them, which ignorantly rashly or constrainedly made a vow to perform, that which they were not able? namely continence or chastity, without marriage, the breach whereof is not only by marriage, but much more by fornication and uncleanness, yea by continual burning, without actual filthiness, which with Saint Paul is incontinence.  
And yet the Papists, as though there were no way to break such vow, but by marriage, which is the best mean of chastity, for them that can not be chaste in single life, cry out damnation only against married votaries, affirming that infinite whoredoms and uncleanness, are less breach of vow, than marriage, and the marriage of votaries to be no marriage. Yet Saint Ambrose, who counteth it an adultery against Christ, for a vowed virgin to marry, counteth the marriage of such a one, in respect of her bodily husband to be lawful matrimony, and a much less fault, to enter into marriage, than once to commit fornication. Ad Virg. Laps. Cap. 5. And more plainly Saint Augustine which counteth the marriages of such, of whom the Apostle speaketh to be worse than adulteries, in respect of the breach of their vow, made to Christ: yet counteth them to be marriages, and no adulteries, and detesteth the separation of such married persons, De bono Vid●. Cap. 8. 9 10. 11.  
Where Allen railing against our Bishops, and as he termeth our disordered new ministry, saith, that ere ever they be well warmed in their benisices, they must for the most part, as it were Annexum ordini, have a wife. I answered, Belike Saint Paul taketh marriage to be so annexed to the order of an ecclesiastical minister, that he never describeth the perfect pattern of a Bishop or Deacon, but one of the first points is, that he be the husband of one wife. Bristol saith, I allege the text to salve our Bishop's itching lust: and more blasphemously speaketh Allen against our minister's marriage, whom yet they account to be but lay men. Where are they now that say marriage is a naughty thing? But concerning the term of Annexum ordini, although I said in derision thereof, Belike, etc. as before, yet I meant not, that it was necessary for every perfect minister to be married, but that none is more perfect, than they that are married. Notwithstanding some men considering that the Apostle requireth hospitality, that is the charitable entertainment of poor strangers, as a special virtue in a Bishop or minister of the Church, think marriage to be more convenient than sole life, for that degree, because diverse parts of hospitality, of which Saint Paul maketh, the washing of the Saints feet, one, and such like, are not convenient but for women to exercise, whom it were inconvenient, that a Bishop should keep in his house, and not be a married man. But Bristol will teach me to understand, what Saint Paul meaneth by the husband of one wife, by conference of that place. 1. Tim. 5. where he will have a widow to be chosen, such a one, quae fuit unius viri vx●r, as hath been the wife of one husband: so that he requireth in a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, to be made, that he have had only one wife. Indeed Bristol: I learn by this conference, that Saint Paul who knew how to write his mind in Greek, although he had not spoken expressly of the behaviour of Bishops, and Deacons wives. 1. Tim. 3. yet using the present temps, in speaking of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, to be the husband of one wife, & the preterperfect temps, in speaking of widows, which have had one husband did mean, that he requireth such a one to be made Bishop, Elder or Deacon, which presently hath a wife: and not which had a wife, that at the time of their election were dead, as the widows husband. It behoveth a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, sober, etc. except you will likewise say, a Bishop must be such a one, as hath been sober, etc. although he be not so now. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Deacons be the husbands of one wife. And again Tit. 1. ●i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if any man is unreprehensible, the husband of one wife. Therefore a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon, may be he, that hath a wife, presently, and not he that hath had one which is dead, only. Moreover I learn by conference of that place, 1. Tim. 5. that Polygamy, which is many wives at one time, is forbidden a Bishop, and not second marriage, as it hathben commonly and of old time taken of many: seeing there is no reason to exclude a poor widow from alms and office in the Church, that hath lived continently with more husbands than one, so that she have kept her to one at one time: But it is not meet, that she should be elected to an office in the Church, which hath been an adulteress, or unlawfully divorced from her husband, hath married an other, although she may be relieved by alms, if she be penitent.  
But Bristol would have men to mark it well, that yet never from the Apostles time, to this day, any one Bishop or Priest, that is confessed to have been a good one, did marry afterwards, no not jovinian himself. He would feign if he durst, say that no Bishop or Priest had a wife: but that were easily refelled out of Eusebius and all ancient histories. Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. showeth that the Apostles Peter and Philip, had wives and did beget children. Also he saith of Saint Paul, unius quoque uxoris virum utique admittit, seu hoc Presbyter, seu Diaconus, seu Laicus viens matrimonio citra reprehensionem. He alloweth the husband of one wife, whether he be Elder, or Deacon, or lay man, using matrimony without reprehension. Seeing therefore he putteth no difference in respect of matrimony, between a Say man, and a Clergy man, it is plain, that it was as lawful for Elders and Deacons to marry in his time, as for Lay men. Again the same Clemens saith against them that denied the lawfulness of generation, after he had cited diverse texts of Scripture. Quid autem ad haec dicunt, qui in legem, etc. But what say they to these things, which inveigh against the law, and against matrimony, as that it was granted only in the law, & not also in the new Testament? What can they say to these laws that are made, which abhor sowing and generation, when he maketh a Bishop also, him that ruleth his house well, guide of the Church? And the marriage of one woman buildeth the house of our Lord. Therefore he saith, that all things are clean to the clean. Seeing therefore that marriage is as free by his judgement by the new Testament, as by the law, and Aaron's Priests, were at liberty to marry, no man need to doubt, but the Bishops and Elders of the Church of Christ, are at as great liberty, and using their liberty in his time, were allowed for good ones.  
Long after his time, the council of Gangra in their Epistle to the Bishops of Armenia complain of Eustachius and his sect, saying, Presbyteros verò, qui matrimonis contraxerunt, sperni debere dicunt. They say that Elders or Priests which have joined themselves in matrimony, aught to be despised. Therefore these catholic Bishops thought those Priests good ones, which did join themselves in matrimony, & so they made their Canon: Si quis discernit Presbyterum coniugatum, etc. If any man make difference of a married Priest, as though by occasion of his marriage, he ought not to offer, and doth therefore abstain from his oblation, let him be accursed. Cap. 4. Of Deacons also the Ancyrane council decreeth Cap. 10. Diaconi quicunque, etc. Whosoever be ordained Deacons, if at the same time when they were ordained, they protested, saying that they would be joined in marriage, because they could not so continue, if afterward they have married wives, let them remain in the ministery, because the Bishop hath given them licence: But so many as have held their peace, and taken imposition of hands professing continency, and afterward be joined in marriage, aught to cease from the ministery.  
Finally the Decree of Pope Stephanus is cited Dist, 31. Aliter se by Gratian and Ivo: lib 4. allowing the tradition of the oriental Churches for marriage of their Church ministers. Aliter se Orientalium, etc. The tradition of the Eastern Churches hath it otherwise, and otherwise is the tradition of this holy Church of Rome. For the Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons of their Churches, are coupled in marriage: but none of the Priests of this Church, from the Subdeacon unto the Bishop hath licence to enter into marriage. It were hard if there were never a good one among all the Clergy of the East Churches, since the Apostles time, which have been married and yet are.  
To conclude, I trust it is apparent to the indifferent reader, that such texts of Scripture as I alleged in those two books, which Bristol undertaketh in this confuse manner to confute, were rightly applied, and without all violence or wresting, do prove sufficiently that for which they were called to witness. And as for the popish conference of Scriptures, whereof Bristol once again with great loathsomeness doth brag, how sound it is, you may perceive by this example, & taste, given by him in this Chapter. Wherefore I marvel much what learned ministers of our church these were, whom Bristol affirmeth (being in number more than a dozen, and diverse of no vulgar wits) by their only hearing of your conference of scriptures to have become papists. By like some vagabond, irregular, and unhonest persons, being deprived of their ministery for their ungodly behaviour, have sought favour among them by revolting, or at least counterfeiting to be revolted to papistry, when they be of no religion, commended by Bristol for their wits, but neither for their honesty nor learning.    

CAP. IX.  
To defend, that the doctors, as they be confessed to be ours in very many points, so they be ours in all points, and the Protestants 
Bristol.  in no point. All the doctor's sayings that he allegeth, are examined and answered.  
The first part of his doctors, generally his challenging words.  
I confess not the doctors to be yours in very many points, nor simply in few points, nor all in any point 
Fulke.  of controversy, but granting that for a few errors, which you have common with them, in which you also far exceed them, as in prayers for the dead, prayers to saints, some superstitious or superfluous ceremonies, I affirm that in the greatest and chiefest points of controversy, they are either all with us, or not one against us.  
2 A general answer to his challenge, declaring that 〈◊〉 need not to answer his doctors particularly. 
Bristol.   
His first reason is, because I said: we stand for authority 
Fulke.  only to the judgement of the holy scriptures, which scriptures in the chapter going before, he hath satisfied. But how he hath satisfied them, let the indifferent readers judge. And seeing the Papists offer to stand to their judgement in all things, and we refuse them not as witnesses unto the truth, in most things, he is not discharged in reason of answering my doctors.  
His second reason is, for that I do answer all mine own doctors for him, if it be well considered: & what is your consideration? In that I confess them to have held with you the very same points, for which we must be condemned (no remedy) as differing from the doctors in the greatest points. What are those I pray you? Bristol answereth. For why doth he say, that we are against the honour of God, & against the offices of Christ, but because we hold invocation of saints, and worshipping of their relics? yes sir, for other more gross idolatry and defacing of the kingdom, priesthood, and prophetical office of Christ, and for holding these two points more absurdly and grossly then any of the doctors did. Again, why doth he say, that we are against the authority of God's word, but because we hold with traditions, as the doctors did? I answer, the doctors held with no traditions that were proved to be against the written word of God, they made not the decrees of Counsels and Popes, of equal authority with the word of God as you do.  
But of one of the greatest points he repeateth my words, in which I say expressly: I confess with M. Allen, that the old writers, not only knew, but also have expressed the value of our redemption by Christ, in such words, as it is not possible that the Popish satisfaction can stand with them. And yet on the other side (saith Bristol) see what followeth immediately. Against the value of which redemption, if they have uttered any thing, by the word of satisfaction, or any thing else, we may lawfully reject their authority, not only though they be doctors of the church, but also if they were angels from heaven. But what I pray you concludeth Bristol of these two sayings. His words follow immediately: So that now we no more need to defend against him, that we are not contrary to the doctors, then that the doctors are not contrary to themselves. As though it were impossible for men to be contrary to themselves. And yet I say no more of them, then of the angels, that they are contrary to the truth in this point, but that if they were, we might reject them as lawfully as the angels, if they brought another gospel. Last of all he saith: We need not defend that we are contrary to ourselves in the same. For in what words the doctors speak thereof, the same do we. Neither is the antecedent true, nor if it were, doth the argument follow. For you will not say as the old writers do, that through the redemption of Christ, a man is justified before God by faith only. without respect of his works or merits. And where you use the doctor's words, you either use them in a contrary sense, or else elude them with additions & distinctions, neither grounded on the Scriptures nor on the old doctors, but invented out of your own heretical brains. After which manner it is easy to defend that they say nothing against any heresy, which they do not condemn by name, although they plainly avouch the truth, against such error.  
3 I join with him nevertheless particularly. 
Bristol.   
Although they ascribe not infallibility to a few, 
Fulke.  but only to the uniform consent of the doctors, yet he is content to join upon this issue, that the protestants have not against them for any one article at all, so much as any one doctor at all. How he avoideth mine evidence, you shall see in that which followeth:  
The second part. Of his doctors particularly: First, whether they expound any scripture against us. 
Bristol.   
As touching antichrist, I said, Pur. 249. The seat of antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church 
Fulke.  according to the revelation of Saint john, and the exposition of Ireneus, who judged that Lateinos was that number of the beasts name spoken of Apoc. 13. To this Bristo●● answereth, here are two ragged conclusions. The first, antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church, ergo the Pope of Rome is antichrist. No sir, I made no such argument, but of the authority of Irenaeus I proved, that the seat of antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church, and therefore superstition was somewhat forwarder than in the Greek church. The other conclusion (sayeth Bristol) is this: Irenaeus judged that Lateinos should be the name of antichrist, (as jesus was and is the name of Christ) ergo, he judged that antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin church: I answer, the antecedent is yours Master Bristol, and not mine. For I said not, that Irenaeus judged that Lateinus should be the name of antichrist, as jesus is the name of Christ, as though antichrist should be a singular man: For Irenaeus sayeth it, in respect of his kingdom, which should be in the Latin part of the world: V●lde verisimile est, quoniam verissimum regnum hoc hab●● vocabulum. It is very like, because the most true kingdom hath that name, which was the kingdom of the Romans. Therefore we must seek in the Roman kingdom for antichrist: in which kingdom have reigned hitherto Emperors and Popes. emperors have been heathenish & Christened: the heathenish it could not be, because antichrist must sit in the Church, and they were altogether without. Of the Emperors, some were Catholic, and some heretical. The Catholic no man will charge: the heretical Emperors were no false Prophets, as antichrist must be a false teacher, that with lying signs and wonders shall deceive the world: wherefore it remaineth that of all that have hitherto reigned in the Latin Empire, the Pope must be that principal antichrist. For Caluine and Luther, whom Bristol fond nameth to be in the Latin Church) never bore rule in the Latin kingdom. Bristow'S last refuge is, that Irenaeus did not so judge. He only sayeth, it is very like to be so. I ask no more but his judgement of the likelihood: For I know he reciteth other names, which have in them the same number, as evan, Teitan, and in the end will pronounce certainly of none, holding, that it is better to expect the fulfilling of the Prophecy, then to pronounce rashly of any. But seeing antichrist is already revealed, and all the prophecy of his apostasy and seduction accomplished, we doubt not to join to that ancient likelihood of Irenaeus, the later likelihoods of the same name agreeing in number with Lateinos in Greek, Romiith in Hebrew, not neglecting Ecclesia Italica. The consent of all which names, signifying the region, the city, the kingdom, bear so hard upon the Pope & the popish church of Rome, that Bristol, though he lay both his shoulders to it, shall never be able to remove it.  
Secondly I said of Hierom, Pur. 373. He was not such a slave to the church of Rome, that whatsoever pleased the bishops of that see, he was ready to accept: For than he would not have been so bold to call Rome the purple whore of Babylon, Praef. ad Paul. in lib. Didym. Bristol replieth: as though when he calleth Rome so, or when Augustine calleth it the Western Babylon, they mean the church of Rome. I said not they mean the church of Rome, as it was in their time, but that antichrist should sit at Rome, whom the scripture sayeth, must sit in the temple or Church of God, 2. Thes. 2. Neither doth Augustine mean it of the empire, but of antichrist, which should arise in the Roman empire. Neither doth Hierom mean of the Paganism of Rome, that remained in his time, which in the place by Brist. cited ad marcel. Ep. 16. he testifieth to have been trounder feet, but of the purple whore sitting aloft, upon the rose coloured beast, of the wine of whose fornication, all nations were made drunken, of the blasphemy written in her forehead, of the seven hills etc. although in his time, he confess there was the church of God, the triumph of the Apostles and Martyrs, etc. & gentilitate calcata & Gentility being trodden under feet, the Christian name daily lifting itself aloft. But that Hierom in doubts did seek for resolution of Damasus bishop of Rome, and that all other must likewise do. Bristol citeth his Epistle ad Damasum. To 〈…〉. 2. in which he consulteth with Damasus, whether he should use the name of Hippostasis, and saith further, that whosoever gathereth not with Damasus, doth scatter: that is to say, whoso is not Christ's is antichrists, I answer, all this was well, so long as Damasus was a Catholic bishop, but that Saint Jerome was not ready to accept whatsoever it pleased the bishop of Rome, it is manifest by that he affirmeth Liberius to have subscribed to the Arrians, in Catal. script. which he would never have done, if he had thought it impossible for the bishop of Rome to err, or necessary for him to follow the bishop of Rome's doctrine in all things. The place cited ad Damasum with answer to it, is in my confutation of Saunders Rock, Cap. 15. And therefore the saying of Leo Epist. 89. That Christ took Peter into the participation of the undivided unity, proveth not, that it is all one to be Peter's and to be Christ's, when Peter erreth from Christ, and much less, that it is all one (as Bristol sayeth) to be in unity with Peter and his successors, meaning the Popes, and to be in unity with Christ, from whom, not only all Popes in matter now of controversy do. But diverse of the Bishops & Popes of Rome have been divided into horrible and confessed errors and heresies, of both parts: as Gentilism, Arrianisme, Eu●ichianisme, Menothelitisme, Sadduceisme.  
Again, I said Pur. 320. Which of your prelate's will follow Ambrose in his commentary upon the Apocalypse, where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the city of Rome? whose words Bristol will recite for me. This whore doth betoken in some places Rome in special, which then did persecute the church of God: in some places in general, the city of the devil, that is to say, the whole body of the reprobat. Bristol asketh if it be not a perilous point to touch the city of Rome in saint john's time, when it did persecute the church of Rome? As though S. john telleth a story of his own time, and not a prophecy of the time to come. Ambrose therefore, or whosoever writeth that commentary, interpreteth that prophecy, Cap. 17. to be fulfilled of the city of Rome: which was not only of persecution, but of seduction. But the undoubted Ambrose (if you remember, sayeth Bristol) of the church of Rome sayeth: In all things I covet to follow the Roman church, De sac. lib. 3. Cap. 1. but yet that he was not bound to follow the church of Rome, he sayeth immediately after: Sed tamen & nos homine sensum habemus, etc. But yet we being men, have understanding. Therefore, that which is more rightly observed elsewhere, we also do rightly observe. We follow the Apostle Peter himself, we stick unto his devotion, what doth the church of Rome answer to this? Verily, Peter himself, which was a priest of the church of Rome, is author to us of this assertion. In this Chapter he noteth an error of the church of Rome in that they used not to wash men's feet in baptism. Unjustly indeed, he urgeth that ceremony as necessary, but yet he showeth, that his judgement was, that the church of Rome might receive a custom contrary to the scripture.  
Beside this (saith Bristol) he calleth Peter the first & the foundation in the very same place, where say you, Pur. 320 he affirmeth, that Peter is not the foundation. Howsoever I deal with my reader, you deal unfaithfully with me: for my words are these: He affirmeth the not Peter, but the faith & the confession of Peter, is the foundation of the church: and that the primacy of Peter was a primacy of faith, not of honour, of confession, not of authority or higher order. De incaern. dom. Ca 4. & 5. Ambrose his words are, Cap. 4. Vos autem etc. But what do you say of me? Immediately (Peter) being not unmindful of his place, he exercised the primacy: The primacy of confessing truly, not of honour, the primacy of faith, not of order or degree. And Cap. 5. Faith is the foundation of the church. For it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of death shall not prevailc against it, his confession overcometh hell. The former of these places, Brist. corrupteth by adding this word, worldly, to the words of Ambrose, honour, & degree, a● though Ambrose had meant, that Peter excelled in ecclesiastical honour & degree, being equal to his fellows in worldly honour and degree. But such folly was far from Ambrose, to say Peter was not better than the rest of the Apostles in worldly honour & degree, when neither Peter nor the rest had any worldly honour or degree of dignity at all. But he expresseth wherein all his primacy was, when he sayeth, he was first in confession, first in protestation of his faith, not being therefore of greater honour or higher degree than his fellows, who all held the same faith and confession. And this of Peter's person, never a word of his successors, which yet are not only the bishops of Rome, when they were at the best, but all other bishops are the successors of the Apostles, Hierom, Euagrius which succession cannot be esteemed by places, in which the Apostles sat in person, but by authority of teaching received from them with soundness of doctrine.  
To the later place (Bristol saith) the devil may prevail against the flesh of a Pope: but his faith, but his confession (as well in all articles that be now in controversy, as in those at that time) will stand, when they shall all be sunk down into their due place. But Saint Ambrose speaketh not of every bishop of Rome's faith and confession, but only of the singular faith and confession of Peter: Thou art Christ the son of the living God, which is against all sects and heresies. Dies me citius etc. the day should sooner fail me then the names of heretics and divers sects. Yet this faith is general against them all, that Christ is the son of God both sempiternal of his father, and also borne of the virgin. Let now the reader judge, whether of us hath dealt more faithfully with Saint Ambrose.  
Fourthly he gathereth, that I say in diverse places: that Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, Alexandrinus, Cyprianus, the Council of Africa, and Socrates the historiographer, did preach or write against the Pope's authority, when it first began to advance itself, in Victor, Cornelius Stephanus, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius & Celestinus.  
To this Bristol answereth: First, that all these Popes by my confession were of the true church, therefore I am against myself in making other Popes to be antichrist, for claiming such authority as these did. Whereto I reply, the former bishops did but begin a little in comparison to discover the mystery of iniquity, those later Popes that are antichrists, did openly show themselves in the temple of God as God, and therefore great difference. Secondly, Bristol answereth, that all those writers did communicate with those Popes: therefore our separation cannot be excused. I reply, their ambitious usurpation tended not to heresy, and therefore they were content to admonish them, but the latter Popes, from whom we descent, are fallen into open heresy and apostasy. Thirdly, he saith, that no one of these writers wrote against the Pope's authority, as he will show of Irenaeus, Polycrates, Dionysius, & Cyprian, Cap. 10. in 28. demand, where I will show that they did write against such unjust authority as those bishops did claim.  
Yet concerning Saint Cyprian in this place, he sayeth, that he exhorteth Cornelius to be as stout in not losing certain African heretics, as their own bishop had been in binding of them. By which he would have men think, that Cornelius had authority to undo, that which Cyprian had done, as the Pope in these days taketh upon him. But Cyprian yieldeth to no such authority, but marveleth that Cornelius was any thing moved with the threatening of those heretics, to receive them into his chur●●, under pretence that Cyprian had not written to him immediately of the constitution of Fortunatus a counterfeit bishop by a few heretics, counting it sufficient that Cornelius knew before, that they were excommunicated by the bishops of Africa, saying of their gadding to Rome, Cùm statutum sit, etc. Seing it is decreed of us all, and that it is meet & also right, that every man's cause should be heard there, where his crime is committed: and a portion of the flock is ascribed to every pastor, which every one should rule and govern as he will give an account of his doing to the Lord, verily, they over whom we are set, must not gad about, nor with their subtle & crafty rash, craze the concord of the bishops, which cleaveth together. But there to plead their cause, where both they may have accusers & witnesses of their crime, except to a few desperate men & castaways, the authority of the bishops placed in Africa seemeth to be less, which have already judged of them, & by the weight of their judgement condemned their conscience bound with the snares of many trespasses. Their cause already hath been heard: the sentence is already pronounced of them, neither is it congruent to the censure of priests to be reprehended by levites of movable & inconstant mind, etc. You see that Cyprian meant nothing less, than to give Cornelius' bishop of Rome authority, to reverse the sentence of the bishops of Africa, whose authority he judged to be nothing less than the bishops of Rome or other places.  
Moreover Bristol saith that Cyprian doth also note in S. Stephan some little negligence, but much more wilful obreption, in those two lapsed bishops of Spain, Basilides & Martialis, who had concealed from him the truth, that in their supplication they should have expressed, which because they did not, he saith well, that their restitution by the Pope could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the bishop● of their own province. This which so plainly maketh for the Pope's authoritit (saveth Bristol) you are so blind to bring against it.  
Not so blind but I can see, that you acknowledge 〈…〉 e Pope i●●udgement of binding and losing may 〈…〉re. But what I pray you maketh this for the Pope? you 〈…〉 eane perhaps, that Cyprian doth grant by implication, if the foresaid error had not deceived Stepha●●s, he had full authority to have restored those two 〈◊〉 apsed bishops. But Cyprian sayeth not so, you heard ●efore what his judgement was of them that were condemned in one Province, that their sentence could not ●e reversed in another, but if they would return to the Church, they should there be received upon their repentance, where they were first condemned, and in this 4. Epistle he sayeth: Quare etsi, etc. wherefore although some of our fellow bishops there have been (most well-beloved brethren) which think the divine discipline is to be neglected, and do rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis, this thing ought not to trouble our faith. You see, that he reproveth Stephanus and such as took his part, for neglect of divine discipline, in communicating with those heretics which were lawfully condemned in their own province, and therefore could not by any other be restored.  
As concerning the Counsels of Africa & Milevis, (sayeth Bristol) the question between them and those other five Popes, was not about the matters of the universal church, as for example, matters of faith. No was, is not the Pope's authority of you counted a matter of faith, and of the universal church? although they agreed in all other matters. But Bristol shameth not to say, it was not about the Pope's authority in receiving of bishops appeals, but what order the Nicene Council had taken therein. As though that counterfeit Canon was not alleged, to justify the Pope's authority in receiving such appeals. But there are examples you say, of appeals, and namely of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople, but of which patriarchs & to whom you show not. yea, S. Augustine himself, you say. useth it as a plea: That Cecilianus was ready to plead his cause before other churches out of Africa. Ep. 162. This proveth not, that Cecilianus, although trusting in the innocency of his cause, refused no indifferent judges: yet that he appealed to the Church of Rome, and least of all to the singular judgement of the Bishop of Rome, but to all other churches. And the appeals that were made in his cause were made to the Emperor, and from the Bishop of Rome, being once delegate of the Emperor to hear his cause with other Bishops, unto him the second time, who gave aliud vidicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum etc. an other judgement of A relate, of other Bishops, as it is plain in the same Epistle.  
But such appeals were lawful, (saith Bristol) by the council Sardicense cap. 7. in the same Carthage council cap. 3. whose authority none of those African Bishops did deny, for the same Bishops were of it, that were of the Nicene: and Saint Augustine chap. 7. did expressly admit in the Canon of the inferiori appealing from their own● Bishops. In deed in the 3. chap. of the 6. Council of Carthage, that forged Canon of Bishop's appeals was alleged, which is now read for the 7. Canon of the Sardicense council, but it was alleged as a canon of the Nicene Council, and if it had been a true canon of Sardica Council, why did not those Bishops allege it as a Canon of Sardica, as well as the other Canon of the inferiors appealing from their own Bishop unto the Bishop's next adjoining, seeing the Bishops of Africa and S. Augustine himself, were so ready to yield to the authority of the Council of Sardica. Therefore it appeareth, that the Canon of bishops appeals to Rome being first forged as a Canon of the Nicene Council, when it could not find any settling there, was afterward foisted in the Sardicen Council.  
Thirdly (saith Bristol) these appeals were lawful by the Nicene Council also, whereupon you say very insolently trusting overmuch your lying Lutheran friends, the Magdeburgiens' that S. Augustine & his fellows took those Popes with plain forgery of the Canons of Nice, and fetched them over the coals meetly well for it. Bristol will still defend that forged Canon, for other there is none in the Nicen council that alloweth such appeals. As for the Magdeburgiens' I never read them: but the report of the counsels gathered by Peter Crab, I have read 〈◊〉 dozen years before I wrote against Allen. And in the end of the African Council I read this Epistle of the council to Celestinus bishop of the city of Rome. Domino dilectissimo & honorabili fratri Celestino, etc. To our most well-beloved lord & honourable brother Celestinus. We Aurelius, Palatinus, Antonius, Tutus, servus dei, Terentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, januarius, Optatus, Celticius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and the rest which were present in the universal African council of Carthage: We would have wished if as thy holiness hath insinuated by letters sent by our fellow elder Leo, that you rejoiced of the coming of Appiarius: so we also might send with gladness these writings of his purgation. Verily both our and your cheerfulness should be now more certain, neither might seem too much hasted and over-speedy which as yet had gone before aswell of one to be heard as of one that is already heard. Surely when our ho lie brother, and fellow bishop, Faustinus came unto us, we gathered a Council, and believed that he was therefore sent with him, that as by his help he had been before restored to the Eldership, so rrow by his labour he might have been purged of so great crimes as are objected by the Tabracenes, whose so great & so heinous wicked facts, the examination of the course of our council hath found out; that the said persons hoped for patronage rather than judgement, and the aid of a defender rather than the justice of an examiner. For first of all, how much he withstood the whole congregation, offering daily divers injuries as one that maintained the privileges of the Roman Church, and that would be received into communion of us, whom thy holiness (believing that he had appealed, which he was not able to prove) had restored to the communion, which nevertheless was not lawful, and thou mayst know also better by the reading of the acts. Notwithstanding holding a most painful judgement by the space of three days, when being very much troubled, we inquired of diverse things objected unto him, GOD the righteous judge, strong, and long suffering, to our great profit hath cut off either the delays of our fellow Bishop Faustinus, or the crafty shifts of Appiarius himself, by which he went about to hide his filthiness, not to be named. For his more vile and stinking obstinacy being subdued, by which he would have overwhelmed so great and filthy mire with impudency, our GOD straining his conscience, and publishing even unto men, the secret crimes which he did already condemn, which were as it were wrapped close in his heart, suddenly this crafty denier broke forth into confession of all the wicked facts that were objected against him: And at length, of his own accord convicted himself of all those incredible reproaches, and turned into mourning even our hope by which we both believed and wished that he might have been purged of so shameful blots, but that he mitigated this our heaviness, with one only comfort that both he discharged us from the labour of longer inquiry, and also provided for his wounds such a medicine as it was, although it were by unwilling confession, and his own conscience striving against it, our Lord and brother. Therefore reserving our duty of due salutation we earnestly desire you that henceforward you do not easily admit unto your hearing, such as come from hence, nor that you will any more receive into communion those that are excommunicated by us, because your worship may easily perceive, that this matter is also defined in the Nicene Council. For although the provision seem to be there made of inferior Clerks, or lay men, yet how much more would it, that the same should be observed concerning Bishops: that being suspended from the communion in their province, they should not seem by your holiness, either overhastily or unduly, to be restored to the communion. Also let your holiness refuse the lewd refuges, or shifts of Priests, and other clerks as it is meet for you to do, because that by no decree of the fathers, this is taken away from the Church of Africa, and the decrees of Nice have most manifestly committed them, whether they be clerks of inferior degree, or whether they be Bishops themselves unto their own metropolitans. For most wisely and justly they foresaw, that all businesses should be ended in their own places where they began, and that the grace of the holy ghost, should not be wanting to every province, whereby equity by the priests of Christ might both be seen wisely, & also held most constantly, especially because it is granted to every man, if he shallbe offended with the judgement of them that shall hear his cause, to appeal to the Counsels of his own province, or else to a general council. Except peradventure there be any man which believeth, that our GOD can inspire the justice of examination and trial, into any one man whomsoever, and doth deny the same to innumerable priests gathered together in council. Or how can the same judgement given beyond the sea, be steadfast and sure, unto which the necessary persons of witnesses, either for infirmity of sex, or of age, or for many other lets that may happen, cannot be brought? for that any judges should be sent as it were from the side of your holiness, we find it decreed in no Synod of the fathers: For that decree which you sent unto us long ago, by our said fellow Bishop Faustinus, as a decree of the Nicene council, in the truer council copies which are received of the Nicene council, being sent unto us, out of the authentical copy, by holy Cyrillus our fellow Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and by the worshipful Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, which also have been sent from us before this time, by Innocentius priest, and Marcellus subdeacon (by whom they were directed from them to us) unto Bishop Bonifacius of worshipful memory, your predecessor in which we could find no such matter. Also your clarks as executors of your commandments, neither send ye, nor grant ye, to any that shall require them: lest we should seem to bring the smoky pride of the world, into the Church of Christ, which to them that desire to see God, showeth forth the light of simplicity, and the day of humility, for touching our brother Faustinus (now that Appiarius a man to be lamented is removed out of the Church of Christ for his unspeakable wickedness) we are sure that (saving the honesty & moderation of thy holiness) thy brotherly love will not suffer him to remain any longer in Africa: And written with an other hand, our Lord preserve your ho lynesse, praying for us in long life, Lord brother.  
Thus have I set down the whole Epistle, though it be somewhat long, that the English reader may see, and judge of the whole matter in controversy between the Bishops of Rome, and all the bishops, of all the countries of Africa which was the third part of the world, and how truly Bristol first denieth the forgery which was proved by copies sent from Alexandria & Constantinople, out of the authentical copy of the Council of Nice. Secondly that he saith the same matter in question for appeals, was decreed by the council of Sardica, when this Epistle affirmeth, y●, by no decrees of any Synod, any such thing was appointed, but the clean contrary by the council of Nice defined. Thirdly where he saith, those African fathers had small cause to stand so much with the Popes in those appeals, that they show great cause. Fourthly, where Bristol saith, that by this their doing nothing can be inferred against the Pope's authority above provincial Counsels, more than against a general Counsels authority above a provincial, when they show the last appeal to be permitted to any man that findeth himself grieved, unto the general counsels. Fiftly, where he saith that popish kings & bishops, at this day stand with the Popes in the right of giving benefices, appeals &c. with his own good leave, without any prejudice to his superiority, I answer, the bishops of Africa, without the Pope's leave, & against his will, decreed, that whosoever did appeal out of Africa, should not be received into communion of any in Africa. What the Pope of servile fear is constrained at this day to yield, lest he should be utterly forsaken of all, as he is of most, it is nothing to the purpose.  
But I am most ridiculous, in Bristow'S judgement, where I allege Socrates the Novatian, speaking against Pope Celestinus, for taking away the novatians Churches in Rome, and counting it a point of foreign Lordship, not of Priesthood. Thus the Papists defame such as write plainly against them, Eusebius they make an Arrian, Socrates a Novatian, even as he defamed Saint Paul in the last Chapter, with much pricking of bodily lust. But what cause hath he to charge Socrates with the heresy of Novatus? He allegeth none at all, neither is he able ever to prove the crime. In deed Socrates living at such time, as the novatians joining in faith of the holy Trinity with the Catholics against the Arrians, Macedonians, and such other heretics, were not so odious, speaketh less sharply of them, then of other heresies. Yet always he accounteth them among heretics: As Lib. 5. Cap. 19 Ab eo tempore quo Novatiani, etc. Ever since the time that the novatians departed from the Church. Is it like that Socrates was a Novatian, when he confesseth that they were departed from the Church? Likewise having spoken of the divisions that were in the Catholic Church, he cometh to speak of the schisms that were among heretics, and nameth the Arrians, novatians, Macedonians and Eunomians Supr. & Trip. Hist. lib. 9 cap. 36. Thus much for the credit of Socrates: now to the matter: where Bristol saith, he counted it a point of foreign Lordship to expel the novatians, etc. it is false. But he showeth the cause, why Celestinus could not prevail to do any good with them, his words are: Verumillos invidia corripuit Romano episcopai● iam olim perinde atque Alexandrino ultra Sacerdotii limites ad externum dominai●m progresso. But envy took hold of them, because the rhetoric of Rome, long before even as the Bishopric of Alexandria, was proceeded beyond the bands of Priesthood into foreign Lordship. Finally that Socrates blameth the immoderate authority of S. Chrysostom, he doth it not alone, but other writers as much as he, & Socrates reporteth more of his severity toward his own clergy, then toward the novatians of whom he was counted too much a favourer, & therefore Socrates writeth, that some judged, that he was justly deposed Eo quòd multas Ecclesias Novatianorum, Quartodecimanorun, & aliorum tulisset haereticorum. Because he had borne with many Churches of the novatians, Quartodecimanes and other heretics. Trip. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 20. Last of all whereas I alleged against the Pope's supremacy, the decree of the Aphrican council Cap. 6. that no Bishop of the first see, should be called highest Priest, or Prince of Priests, but only Bishop of the first see: Bristol saith, it pertaineth only to the Primates of Africa, and concerneth not the titles, much less the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. But the truth is, that it was made specially to repress the ambition of the Roman Prelates, and therefore in the end of the Canon, as it is contained in the decrees, Dist. 99 cap. Primae. it is added, universalis autem, nec etiam Romanus pontifex app●lletur, and let none, no not the Bishop of Rome be called universal. By which it is manifest that his titles and authority also are commanded to be kept within their own bounds, and not to be acknowledged to have any thing to do in the Churches of Africa, by commandment or authority such as then was claimed. But the africans (saith Bristol) as appeareth in Saint Augustine's works, never called him Bishop of the first see, but Bishop of the Apostolic see. Although Saint Augustine's works can not be witness, how the africans called him always: yet what gaineth the Pope or Bristol for him by this? What if they never called him primate or Bishop of the first see? (for other inferior Bishops were called Bishops of the second see.) The council forbade them to give any other titles of authority beside this Bishop of the first see, it did not bind them that they should of necessity call them by that title. For it was sufficient to call them the Bishops of Carthage, of Alexandria, of Rome, of Antioch, etc. And that they called the Roman Prelate Bishop of the Apostolic see of Rome, they gave him no more authority over the Churches of Africa, then when they called the Bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or of any other Churches founded by the Apostles Bishop of the see Apostolic. Thus my Doctors (for any thing Bristol can bring) remain constant witnesses of my side, against the usurped and Antichristian authority of the Bishop of Rome.  

2 About only faith. 
Bristo.   
I quoted Ambrose, Origen, and Cyprian, for justification by faith only. To this Bristol answereth 
Fulke.  first generally, that hath satisfied these Doctors Cap. 8. Par. 4. that they mean a man may be justified by faith, although before he was a Christian Catholic, he did no good works. But he cannot so escape, for they speak not only of the first conversion, of a man, but of justification unto salvation of every faithful man, according to the example of Abraham and David, who both had good works, yet were not justified by them before God, but by their faith only. And Saint Paul expressly saith of himself, and all other Christians that were in his time, & that shallbe in all times, that the example of Abraham's justification is the example of his and their justification: Rom. 4. Therefore his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, and it is not written for him only, that it is imputed to him, but also for us, unto whom it shallbe imputed, which believe in him that raised up jesus from the dead, who was delivered for our sins, and raised again for our justification. I wish that Bristol in the next conference that he maketh, after the reading hereof, would mark this text with the circumstances of the persons of whom it is spoken, & of the temps in which the holy Ghost speaketh, that faith shallbe imputed for righteousness. In the mean time, I must prove that these fathers speak generally of all Christians and the only way of justification, and not of new converts only, and of the instinct of their baptism or new conversion only, but that they are justified by faith unto eternal salvation.  
First Origen, after he had brought the example of the thief justified by faith only, bringeth in the example of the sinful woman. Luk. 7. Ex nullo legis opere, sed pro sola fide ait ad eam, remit 〈…〉 ur tibi peccata tua: & iterum, fides tua saluam te fecit, etc. For no work of the law, but for faith only, he saith unto her, Thy sins are forgiven thee: And again, thy faith hath saved the, go in peace, But also in many places of the Gospel we read, that our Saviour used this speech, that he saith, the faith of the believer, is the cause of his salvation. By all which it is clear, that the Apostle judgeth, rightly that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. See you not that justification is not only to set a man in free will, discharged of his sins committed before baptism, but continueth with him unto salvation? Also where I said that Origen answereth this objection, which the Papists make against us, for teaching justification by faith only, (though Bristol say it is false) it is very true Lib 3. Cap 3. in epi. ad Rom. Sed fortassis, etc. but peradventure some body hearing this, may become idle and negligent in doing good works, if only faith suffice to justification. Is not this one of the Papists objections? Again that this doctrine of justification pertaineth only to them that are newly converted to Christianity, against which Origen showeth by example of the Pharisee trusting in himself that he was righteous, and boasting thereof. Luke 18. that it pertaineth to all men, that boasting may be excluded, and that none boast in any thing, but in the cross of Christ, Vides Apostol 〈…〉 non gloriantem, etc. Thou seest the Apostle not glorying of his righteousness, nor of his chastity, nor of his wisdom, nor of his other virtues and acts, but most manifestly pronouncing and saying, let him that glorieth glory in the Lord, etc. and so at length showeth, that all this doth verify the saying of the Apostle, we judge that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law, which before he had interpreted by faith only, whether they have no works going before as the thief, the sinful woman, or whether they have works of the law without the faith of Christ, as the Pharisee, or whether they have never so many works and virtues with the faith of Christ, as the Apostle Paul, there is but one way of justification, for all men, which is by remission of sins, through faith only. Where Cyprian saith: that faith only profiteth Ad Quirin. Cap. 42. Bristol saith, he meaneth that faith profiteth, and without faith nothing profiteth. I confess in deed he meaneth all that Bristol saith, and more too, namely that faith profiteth, therefore works do not profit unto justification, as appeareth by that testimony of Scripture which he citeth, to prove his saying: Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for justice. Gen. 15. By which Saint Paul proveth, that Abraham was justified by faith without works, and yet Abraham was not void of good works. Out of the Book De duplici Martyrio I cited Cyprians saying: That he believeth not in God at all, which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only. To this Bristol answereth without shame, that the Book De duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition, coined by Erasmus: as though it were credible that Erasmus being such an utter enemy to all forgery and supposition, would himself counterfeit a book under the name of Cyprian. But Bristol doubting, lest he may be convicted by ancient copies of this book, remaining in Libraries, as no doubt, but that he may, for a second answer saith, That this sentence is of itself Catholic enough. For to trust God's gifts, as in the Catholic faith, and good works that he worketh in us, also to trust in Saints: to trust in these, I say, as they be his, is to trust in him only.  
I say, (sayeth Bristol,) what need we further witness or reason? But Christ telling a parable, against them that trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, telleth of a Pharisee, that trusted in his works, as they were the gifts of GOD, to whom he gave thanks for them. Luke. 18. This authority of Bristol is enough to discharge Pelagius, Celestinus, and all the rabble of free-will men, who trusted in nothing, but that was the gift of God, and so acknowledged by them, in so much as they confessed, that a man was justified by the grace of God, when he was justified by his own works, because God gave free will, and power to work well, also a law by keeping whereof, men might be righteous. Finally this rule of Bristol, will justify a man, which putting his trust in Angels, worshippeth them as God's Angels, yea which putting his trust in any of God's creatures, trusteth in him alone. So that nothing is so singular, but he can make it general, nor any thing so general, but he can restrain it at his pleasure.  
Now that Ambrose also extendeth the grace of justification by faith only unto eternal salvation, it is manifest as generally throughout his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, so notably in 1. Cor. Cap. 1. upon these words of the Apostle, I thank my God always for you, for the grace of God which hath been given you in Christ jesu. Datam dicit, etc. He saith this grace which hath been given you in Christ jesus, which grace is so given in Christ jesus, because this is decreed of God that he which believeth in Christ, should be saved, without works, obtaining freely remission of sins, by faith only. Also in Praef. ad Gall. a praedicatione, etc. that from the preaching of john, the law doth cease, that only faith may suffice unto salvation, which is an abridgement of the law. Likewise Exhortatione ad virgins: Videtis mysteria, etc. you see the mysteries, you see the grace of Christ, the grace of the holy Ghost, which is delivered as it were by a certain lot, because not of works, but of faith, every one is justified of the Lord. For as the falling out of the lot, is not in our power, but is such, as chance hath brought, so the grace of our Lord, is not as it were of the merit of hire, but is delivered, as of his will. This writeth Ambrose of all that are partakers of the grace of God, and not of them that are newly baptized or converted only. Again in the same Book, he saith, speaking of all men that attain to salvation, Hîc quidem luctamur, sed alibi coronamur, etc. here truly we do wrestle, but in an other place we are crowned. I have spoken not of myself only, but of all men generally. For whence should I have so much merit, to whom pardon is in steed of a crown? What can be said more plainly, to exclude the merit of good works from justification? whereas the reward of good works that is freely given to the justified man by faith only, both Ambrose and we do nevertheless acknowledge.   

3. About purgatory. Touching Scriptures expounded against 
Bristol.  it.  
He sayeth I am taken in a vain brag, because 
Fulke.  I being urged by Allen, to bring any Scripture expounded by any of all antiquity against prayers for the dead, I bring only Hierom, referring the reader to other places of Cyprian, and Origen, and other cited in diverse places of my book. These places he saith, are but bare names. But when we come to expounding of these places, we shall find, either reason or authority of these Doctors for us. In the mean time, we will consider Hieronyme, whom Bristol saith, that I confess to have allowed prayers for the dead: Wherein he saith untruly, for I never confessed simply, that he allowed prayers for the dead: But Pur. 194. I said interrogatively and by way of concession, How happeneth it that Chrysostom and Hieronyme, which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead? And indeed in so many books of Hieronyme nothing can be found whereby it may be proved, that he allowed prayer for the dead, although it were a common error of many in his time. And in this place cited in the decrees by Gratia●. 139. 2. he simply denieth that any prayers are profitable for the dead.  
The place in deed as (Bristol saith) is in his Comment. upon Gal. 6. although he in exposition allude to 2. Cor. 5. we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ. But the answer of this place of Jerome, Bristol saith, I might learn of the gloze, which expoundeth it of them that die without repentance only, but in deed it is spoken generally of all men. As the very words declare upon this text, Every one shall bear his own burden. Videtur superioribus contrair●, ubi ait, etc. He seemeth to go against the former sentence, where he saith: Bear the burdens one of an other: For if every one shall bear his own burden, one cannot bear the burdens of an other. But we must consider that there he commanded, that we which commit sin, should in this life help one an other, and in this present world should be an aid one to an other: but here he speaketh of the judgement of the Lord upon us: that not of other men's sin, or of comparison of the worse, but according to our own work, we shallbe judged of him, either sinners or holy, every one receiving according to his own work. Obscurè licet doce 〈…〉 r per han● sententiolam, nowm dogma quod latitat: We are taught by this short sentence though darkly, a new doctrine, or opinion which lieth hid: that while we are in this present world, we may help one another, either by prayers or by counsels: but when we shall come before the judgement seat of Christ, that neither job, nor David nor No can entreat for any man, but that every one doth bear his own burden. That which Jerome speaketh of himself, and of all other, that prayers can not avail them, being out of this world, when the gloze restraineth only to them that die in mortal sin, without repentance, it is as good as the old jest, Statuimus, id est abrogamus. It is also worthy to be considered that Jerome as it seemeth against the error of his time, calleth this a new doctrine which he gathereth of that sentence.  
That the most ancient doctors do not interpret the Scriptures by name against Purgatory, I said it was because Purgatory in their time was neither heard nor named. Bristol replieth, that I confessed Cap. 3. that the old doctors heard both the name and the thing, etc. Thus he chargeth me still with confessions falsely. For although Augustine heard of the name of Purgatory, whereof he sometimes doubteth, sometimes denieth all places but two, yet no writer before him. Neither were prayers for the dead heard in the Church, before the heresy of Montanus. But to return to Jerome, whom I said in Eccle. 11. to expound the North and South, not for the states of grace and wrath, but for the places of reward or punishment: Bristol sayeth of both. But I deny that he speaketh of the state of grace, in that sort that Allen meaneth: namely, that any man so dieth in the state of grace, that he obtaineth release of punishment after this life, which is the matter in question, but that Bristol is disposed to cavil. For although a man in this life, may be removed out of the North into the South, yet when the tree is fallen, there is no more removing by Hieroms judgement. Wheresoever thou preparest thee a place, and a seat hereafter, whether it be in the South, or in the North, there when thou art dead, thou shalt continue. This which the Doctor speaketh expressly of a place, a seat of everlasting continuance, Bristol for want of a better answer, expoundeth of merit, as though it might stand with Hieronyms' authority, that the place might be changed although the merit can not be bettered.   

Touching scriptures for Purgatory and prayer for the dead, whether the Doctors say, No Scripture to make for it. 
Bristow●.   
I said that Tertullian confesseth, that oblations & prayers for the dead were not taken of the scriptures but of tradition. Bristol in divers places denieth any such confession of Tertullian, restraining his meaning to an only ceremony of oblation and prayers on the years day of their departure: as though oblation and prayer for the dead generally, were clearly taught in the scriptures, which thing if it be: why doth not Allen or Bristol, or any writer young or old, bring one place out of the canonical Scriptures, allowing prayer and oblation for the dead? and as touching Tertullian, his words are such, as with no equity may be restrained to so particular a ceremony: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimu●. We make oblations for the dead, for the day of men's birth on the yearly day. If Oblationes pr● natalitiis, be not found in the Scriptures at all, neither on the yearly day, nor any other day, Why say we not the like of Oblationes pro desunctis? Again, why may it not be, that the yearly day of celebration is meant only of men's birth, and oblations for the dead left at larg● for to celebrate the yearly festivity of men's birth, was usual among the Gentiles, every man for himself. But to observe the yearly day of all men's death were infinite, either for their friends or for the Priests to do. Wherefore it remaineth, that oblations for the dead, what soever they were in Tertullians' time, were not taken of the Scriptures. And if they were Mass and prayers for the dead, as the Papists say, Mass and prayers for the dead are not taken out of the Scriptures by Tertullians' confession.  
The contradictions that he layeth to me, I always reserve to their peculiar Chapter. Augustine also denieth a third place to be found in the Scriptures, D● Verb. Apost. ser. 14. Contra Pelagian. Hyp. lib. 5. And De Verb. Apostol. Ser. 33 For praying for the dead, he allegeth the tradition of the fathers, which he is not wont to do, where scripture doth not fail him. Epiphanius likewise against Aerius bringeth no Scripture, but the custom and tradition of the Church in naming the dead in their prayers. And which of the old writers except Chrysostom, once goeth about to allege Scripture for prayer for the dead? Wherefore I made no vain brag in saying most of the old writers, that defend such prayers, confessed they had them not of the Scriptures.   

Of certain particular texts. 
Bristol.   
I said that Saint Augustine is clear, that the text (1. 
Fulke.  Cor. 3. of him that shallbe saved through fire) proveth not Purgatory, affirming, that it is meant of the fire of tribulation in this life. Bristol cavilling, that he affirmeth not, but speaketh doubtfully, etc. saith that he only showeth it ought not to be expounded, after the heresy of the Origenistes of hell fire. But Augustine's words are plain: Ignis enim de quolocutus est eo loco Apo●tolus, talis debet intelligi, ut ambo per eum transeant, etc. For the fire whereof the Apostle in that place speaketh, aught to be understood such, that both may pass through it, that is, both he that buildeth upon this foundation, Gold, Silver, precious stones, and he also which buildeth Wood, Straw, Stubble. For when he had said this, he added: The fire shall try every man's work, such as it is, if any man's work remain, that which he hath builded upon, he shall receive reward: But if any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shallbe saved, yet so as it were through fire. The fire truly, is the tentation of tribulation, of which it is manifestly written in an other place, The furnace proveth the potter's vessels, and tentation of tribulation, just men. This fire in this present life, worketh that which the Apostle saith, etc. By this you see that fire interpreted of tribulation in this life, & denied to be spoken of Purgatory fire, through which by their own consent all men do not pass. Again he speaketh not at all, against the Origenistes opinion of hell fire, that it shall have an end, but against such as in his time did hold, That they which forsake not the name of Christ, and are baptized with his laver in the Church, and are not cut off from it by any schism or heresy, although they live in never so great wickedness, which they neither wash away by repenting, nor redeemed with alms, but continue most stubbornly in them unto the end of this life, shallbe saved through fire, although they be punished according to the greatness of their sins and wickedness with long, but yet not eternal fire. But they which believe this, & yet are catholics, seem to me to be deceived by a certain human benevolence. For the holy scripture being consulted, answereth another thing etc. Enc. ad Laurentium. C. 67. Thus his reasons are against a temporal purging fire, through which some should pass & not all, therefore against the popish purgatory, although he deny not but such a thing may be, yet it cannot be proved by this place, nor by any other place of scripture, as hereafter we shall see more at large in the 3. division of this chapter, where Bristol promiseth I wots not what, to show of Augustine's judgement for Purgatory. I answered Allen, apposing us, where we had that new meaning of our saviours words, that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way, is cast into hell, from whence he shall never come, I alleged for that sense Chrysostom, Augustine, Hierom, & Chromatius. This is passing childish (saith Bristol:) For D. Allen demandeth no such thing. But this in deed is passing impudence: for Allens words in the same division (after he hath posed Calvin, Flaccus, Luther, jewel, about their interpretation of scriptures, are these: But I will not make a reckoning of their unseemly gloss, I would their followers would only but ask them in all matters, from whence they had such new meanings which they falsely father on God's word. Now the whole discourse of that Chapter as appeareth by the title, is of that place, Math. 5. Pur. 132. Yet saith Bristol, it is not true, that all those doctors have that sense, which I affirm them to have. But he only saith it, let their words be read, Pur. 145. Where Allen alloweth all interpretations of the place, 1. Cor. 3. so long as they affirm no error: I said he may by the same reason allow contradictories to be true. As in that saying, Matth. 5. of him that shall not come out, until he have paid the uttermost farthing, some have expounded, that he shall always be punished: some, that he shall not be always punished. How is it possible that both these interpretations can be true? Marry (saith Bristol, with as fine Rhetoric, as strong Logic:) Thus it is true, those he and he, are not one he: but he that shallbe always punished, is he, that to the end of the way, that is this life, agreeth not with his adversary, whom he hath deadly injuried, as saying to him, fatue, and thereby incurring the guilt of Gehennae ignis, which i● the prison of the damned. He that shall not be always punished, is he whose injury was but venial, as Racha. And so both interpretations agree well, not only together, but also with the text itself. In deed, this is a fine distinction of he and he: but that he which agreeth not with his adversary in the way, shallbe cast into prison, from whence he shall never come, whatsoever the matter were betwixt them, there is but one prison, from whence there is no deliverance, until the last farthing be paid, which by those doctor's exposition, is never paid. Whether the injury be greater or lesser, the punishment is eternal, without reconciliation, or as Saint Luke sayeth, diligence to be reconciled. If thou being ready to offer thy gift at the altar, dost remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee, go and reconcile thyself, sayeth Christ, and agree quickly with him while thou art in the way. Mark that he speaketh of all injury even offered by anger, or saying Racha, and not only of saying Fatue. But as for, that he, which agreeth with his adversary while he is in the way, what trespass soever he hath done him, he is not at all committed to prison, were his injury great or small. So that which He soever cometh into prison, there is no way of escape, until he have paid the uttermost farthing, which debt is always in paying and never discharged.  
Secondly, whether the doctors give any other kind of testimony 
Bristol.  against us.  
First, about the book of Maccabees.  
Where I said, that Allen pretendeth to prove the 
Fulke.  book of Maccabees by authority of the church, when he cannot by consent that it hath with the scriptures of GOD: Bristol replieth, as though all books are canonical which have consent with the Scriptures. Fulk rejoineth, that he understandeth not his argument so, but that which hath not consent with other canonical books, is not canonical.  
Where I take exception, to the Council of Carthage, which numbereth this book among the canonical scriptures, as a Council provincial: Bristol saith, it was by my confession confirmed in the sixth general Council of Constantinople in Trullo, therefore it hath the authority of the whole true church. But I took no exception to the generality thereof. But let it be as general as you will, both that and the Council in Trullo erred by your own judgement, seeing Carth. 3. Ca 26. decreed against the authority of the Roman prelate, even by name, as Gratian witnesseth, Dist. 99 That in Trullo condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite heretic Art. 16. & 17. Beside this, I allege, that this Council of Carthage 3. among Canonical Scriptures, nameth five books of Solomon, whereas the church alloweth but three. Bristol answereth out of Augustine (which he saith was one of the Council) that the book of wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, of a certain similitude, were called salomon's books, whereas they were written by jesus the son of sirach, although the former he retract in rest. li. 2. Ca 4. I ask no better to prove the error of the Council, but that they named five of Solomon for three. Secondly, it appeareth by Augustine which was one of the Council, that although they called these books canonical, yet they meant them not to be of equal authority with the rest of the scriptures, Aug. contra Gaudent. lib. 2. Ca 23. And this scripture of the Maccabees, the jews count not as the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms, to whom our Lord giveth testimony as to his witnesses, saying, it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled that are written of me in the law & in that Prophets & in the Psalms. But it is received of the church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read & heard. Bristol saith I ascribe unto S. Augustine. that which he reporteth of the jews, when I say that he alloweth them not in full authority with the law, the Prophets & the Psalms: fraudulently omitting, that which I cited out of Augustine in the continued sentence that our Saviour Christ appealeth to these only witnesses, namely the law, the Prophets & the Psalms, & so the jews by ancient tradition, divide all the canonical books into these three orders. Secondly, where I note that Augustine alloweth not these books without condition of sobriety in the reader or hearer: Brist. saith, that all Catholics & S. Peter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole scriptures, as S. Augustine doth in the Donatists, which defended the murdering of themselves by example of Rasis out of the Maccabees. Whereunto I reply, that although sobriety be required in all readers of the holy scripture, & other writings also: yet it is not required, as a condition making the scriptures to be profitably received of the church, if they be soberly read: for howsoever the canonical scriptures be read, & by whomsoever, although he be mad & drunk that readeth or heareth them, yet are they not only profitably, but also necessarily received of the church, but this scripture of the Macchabees (saith Augustin) it is received not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. Who seethe not a great difference between this scripture received under condition, & the canonical scripture authorized by Christ himself? But Augustine (saith Brist.) & the Council, call these canonical, de doct. Chr. li. 2. Ca 8. In that place Augustine nameth all that by any church are counted canonical, confessing in a manner as Bristol granteth, that they were not all generally received of the whole church, & therefore instructeth the student of divinity to prefer some before others. The reasons that I brought to prove this book, not to be canonical, are these, first because the author commendeth Rasis for killing himself, which is contrary to God's commandment. Bristol answereth out of Augustine, that the scripture hath only told it, & not commended it. But the place is manifest, 2. Mach. 14. that the author of the book doth not only report his murdering of himself, but also doth highly commend his manfulness therein, willing (saith he) rather to die valiantly, than to give himself into the hands of wicked men, & to suffer reproach unworthy for his noble stock, & so forth to the end of the Chapter. Secondly, I said, that writer abridgeth the five books of jason: but the holy ghost maketh no abridgement of other men's writings. Bristol saith, the book of Kings in many places abridgeth stories, telling where they be written in other books that are not canonical. To this I answer: the holy ghost abridgeth not the stories written by the spirit of man, but for civil affairs, sendeth the reader to other writers, seeing they are out of his purpose to writ of them. Furthermore he sayeth, S. Mark is commonly called the Abridger of S. Matthew, I answer, not so commonly, as falsely, for many things he rehearseth more largely then S. matthew, and something he utterly omitteth, which is not the office of a true abridger. And albeit that he did, it were no answer to mine objection, that because the spirit of God telleth shortly, that which he himself had told at large, as in the Acts, the sermons of the Apostles, he is an abridger of Chronicles written by profane men. The citing of the saying of Poets, Act. 17. & Tit. 1. proveth not that the holy ghost intending to write an history of the church, useth the labour of the profane man jason the Cyrenian. I trow it is one thing to cite a verse or a piece of a verse to confute men by their own received witnesses, another thing to bring five books of an history into one. Thirdly I said, the author of that book confesseth, that he took that matter in hand, that men might have pleasure in it, which could not away with the long tedious stories of jason. But the spirit of God serveth not such vain delights of men. Brist. asketh, if profitable brevity be a vain delight? but I speak not of the brevity, but the cause why he affected brevity, namely, that men might have pleasure in his work. Fourthly, I said, the author showeth what labour & sweat it was to him to make this abridgement, ambitiously commendeth his travel, & showeth the difference between a story at large, & an abridgement, all which things savour nothing of God's spirit. Also he confesseth his infirmity, and desireth pardon if he have spoken slenderly and barely, whereby he testifieth sufficiently, that he was no scribe of the holy ghost. Bristol saith (that he ambitiously commendeth his travel) is but my blasphemy, all the rest standeth well enough with the assistance of the holy ghost. Concerning his ambitious commendation of his travel, where to serveth his great complaint of the great labour, sweat, & watching the it cost him? & the wise similitude that he taketh of him that maketh a feast, & seeketh other men's commodity, & hath no small savour: so we also for many men's sake (saith he) are very well content to undertake this great labour. A great labour I promise you, and to great profit of many. Likewise in the end, a passing good similitude of wine, to finish his book which he began with a feast. As it is hurtful to drink wine alone, and then again water; and as wine tempered with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: so the setting out of the matter delighteth the ears of them that read the story. But to the rest, Bristol asketh, if the scribes of the holy ghost, must be always eloquent, or able to do all without sweat or labour? I answer, as vain eloquence is not profitable for them, so they never complain for the lack of it, but spiritual utterance they have abundantly, and that without sweat and watching, when they writ as the spirit of God doth move them. Neither doth S. Paul confess, that he lacketh utterance, when he said he was rude in speaking: 2. Cor. 11. but rehearsed what the false Apostles did object against him, for otherwise his speech was so eloquent in divine eloquence, that he was of the pagans at Lystra taken for Mercury. Act. 14. Neither doth he excuse his boldness writing to the Romans, as Bristol saith blasphemously, but showeth that he was bold, upon his office, because he was the minister of Christ unto the gentiles. Ro. 15 That he used the hand of Tertius in writing that Epistle, or any other, it was not to avoid the labour of endi thing: Finally, that he used intolerable pains in preaching, It proveth not, that it cost him great labour, & travel in studying, what to write or preach either, which the spirit of God did minister unto him plentifully: But never doth he crave pardon, as one uncertain whether he have done well or no, as the writer of the Maccabees doth, confessing in the end that he hath done as well as he could, and in the beginning, leaving to the author the exact diligence of every particular, so submitting his labour as inferior in perfection to the work of jason the Cyrenian. That I speak not of so many falsehoods and fables as he affirmeth for truth, which are refelled both by the former book of Maccabees and by josephus.  
Where Allen alleged the authority of jerom in Prol. Mac. I said I knew not what place he noted thereby, for in S. jeroms works none such is found: now cometh Bristol, & telleth me it is in a preface before the book of Maccabees, in the vulgar latin bibles, taken out of the sense of jerom, as divers of those prefaces be, and that will appear by these two places, which I cite out o● him to prove that book not canonical: The former is in his preface upon the book of kings, where rehearsing the names of the canonical books, he omitteth this, and after saith expressly it is not in the Canon. Bristol answereth, it is not in the Canon of the Hebrews. As though the church of God, since Christ should have more books of the old testament in the canon, then the church of the Hebrews had. jerom saith that this preface of his, may be set before all the books which he hath translated out of Hebrew into latin, v● scire valeamus, quicquid extrahos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. That we may be able to know that whatsoever is beside these, is to be placed among the apocryphal writings. So that jerom speaketh expressly, that not only among the jews, but among Christians also these & all other books without the canon, are to be taken for apocryphal.  
The other place of jerom is in his preface upon the proverbs, that they were neither in the Church's canon. Therefore even as the church readeth in deed the books of Judith, Tobias & Maccabees, but yet receiveth them not among the canonical scriptures: so also these two books Ecclesiasticus and Sapientia, she may read to the edifying of the people, but not to confirm the authority of the church's doctrine: To wit (saith Bristol) against the jews, as though the Churches doctrine, is not to be confirmed against heretics, and even to the catholics themselves, by authority of the canonical scriptures.  
That Augustine accounteth these books canonical, after a sort, it was of me confessed, and therefore needed none other testimonies as Bristol bringeth, de praed. sanct. & de civit. Dei lib. 18. cap. 36.  
But jerom is also cited in his preface upon the book of judith to affirm the book of judith to be canonical by the council of Nice: if that were so, what pertaineth it to the book of Maccabees? But in deed it is not so: for though we should doubt nothing of the credit of that preface in judith, the words are these: With the Hebrews the book of judith is red among the hagiographaor books called holy writings, whose authority to strengthen those things that come in controversy, is judged less convenient: yet being written in the Chaldee tongue, it is counted among the stories. But because the Synod of Nice is red to have accounted it in the number of holy scriptures, I have yielded to your request, etc.  
First he saith it was read of the Hebrews among the Hagiographa, which is false, as Hierom affirmeth Prologue. Gal. in lib. reg. Secondly, as Erasmus hath noted, he affirmeth not, that this book was allowed by the Nicene council, but saith it is read to have accounted perhaps in some such writer, as coined the canon sent unto the Aphrican council. Thirdly, if we shall understand Hagiographa here as Bristol would have them, not for those nine that be canonical, but others that be Apocryphal, & yet holy writings, why should we not likewise say, that the computation of the Nicen council, was to receive it among such Apocryphal holy writings, and not among the canonical scriptures of irrefragable authority? And therefore Fulke is even where he was before, in saying that jerom doth simply refuse the books of the Maccabees, & saith the church receiveth them not for canonical, & even that which Bristol saith, I should have showed, that the church neither did then nor aught afterwards to receive them, that we might be able to know (saith he) speaking I dare say of himself & all other members of the Church, that whatsoever books are without the Canon of the Hebrews are to be taken or placed among the apocryphal: where I said that Luther and Illyrieus were not the first that doubted of the Epistle of Saint james, but Eusebiu: before them, saith plainly it is a counterfeit, protesting that I speak it not to excuse them that doubt of it, Bristo● is not content, except I would condemn them for heretics, which afterward reversed their error, especially Luther. Also he chargeth me to be a falsary of Eusebius, in saying that he refuseth that Epistle as a counterfeit, when he saith the clean contrary, and so rehearseth the words of Eusebius, I know not out of whose translation But the words of Eusebius are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It must be known that it is a bastard or counterfeit.   

2 About only scripture. 
Bristol.   
I said Cyprian would have nothing done in the celebration 
Fulke.  of the lords supper, & namely in ministering of the cup, but that Christ himself did. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Bristol answereth the he writeth against the Aquarians which offered water only, where as Christ offered wine, which was clean against Christ's doing. And what is your sacrilege, in robbing of the church of Christ of the whole cup? is it not clean contrary, both to his doing & his commandment, drink ye all of this, and such doing as he did for a tradition unto us, when the Apostle rehearsing that tradition rehearseth drinking of the Lords cup by the lay, as well as eating of the bread? As for mingling wine with water, which first was but a custom of sobriety, after grew into a ceremony, if Cyprian should urge of necessity, he might be answered by his own rule.  
Likewise where Chrysostom saith, it was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, a remembrance should be made of them that are departed, I said we will be bold to charge him with his own sayings: first Hom de Adam & He●a: satis sufficere, etc. we think it sufficeth enough whatsoever the writings of the Apostles have taught us according to the foresaid rule, insomuch that we count it not all catholic whatsoever shall appear contrary to the rules appointed.  
By this Bristol seethe, that I am a great reader of the doctors. For whosoever made this homily (saith he) he took those words out of the instructions which followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus, in the first tome of counsels, where the words are not, the writings of the Apostles but the writings of the see apostolic, which are thought sufficient. Whatsoever my reading be, for the maker of the Homily, I cannot depose, but I trust he will not deny, but it hath in all printed books gone under the name of Chrysostom, and it containeth nothing unworthy the judgement of Chrysostom. It is therefore more like that Celestinus or whosoever gathered that instruction, borrowed those words out of this homily, and from the writings of the Apostles perverted them to the writings of the see apostolic, many such borrowing & perversions are commonly found in those pontifical Epistles. For admit that not Chrysostom, but some later man made that Homily which borrowed such words out of that Epistle or instruction: Why did he alter them, if he thought the writings of the apostolic see sufficient, to approve all catholic doctrine? except perhaps his copy had also apostolica scripta, & that copy which Peter Crab followed in gathering the counsels is corrupted. Certain it is, the homily is ancient, and made in the time when the Pelagian heresy begun to spring, which was in the later time of Chrysostom, & therefore I have used no fraud, or misdemeanour in citing this saying for Chrysostoms', whereto Bristol maketh no answer, but denieth the authority. Likewise where I cite out of Chrysost. in Goe Ho. 58. Thou seest into how great absurdity they fall which will not follow the Canon or rule of the holy scripture, but permit all to their own cogitations. Bristol answereth nothing, but that Chrysost. answereth heretics which said our Lord took not true flesh: as though his sentence is not general against all heretics which go beside the scripture. Thirdly I said, if we be further urged, we will allege that he writeth in evang. jac. Hom. 58. He that useth not the holy scripture, but climbeth another way that is a by way not allowed is a these.  
To this Bristol replieth, that I will call Chrysostom a thief by his own saying, for using tradition, yea verily if he be obstinate: and why not as well as S. Paul, or an Angel accursed, if they bring an other Gospel? Secondly he saith, as though he useth not scripture, which useth tradition, or that scripture doth not warrant tradition as 2. Thessa. 2. I answer such tradition as is warranted by scripture we refuse not, but if all your traditions were warranted by scripture, where should be your unwritten verities? Thirdly (saith Bristol) the thing that he speaketh of, is that Antichrist & Pseudochrists, cannot show any commission out of scripture. I answer that proveth the Pope to be Antichrist, who neither for his authority, nor for his doctrine, can show any commission out of the scripture.  
Fourthly I said, we may be as bold with Chrysostom, as he said he would be with Paul himself, in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. I will say somewhat more, we must not be ruled by Paul himself, if he speak any thing that is his own, and any thing that is humane, but we must obey the Apostle, when he carrieth Christ speaking in him. Bristol asketh, whether he spoke only by scripture. No verily, but by revelation he spoke to S. Paul, by audible and humane voice he spoke to the rest of the Apostles, and whatsoever he spoke any way pertaining to our instruction, is committed to writing, and therefore I believe not Chrysostom, alleging a tradition of the Apostles which is not found in their writings.  
Another place of Chrysostom, I cite in Luke, Chap. 16 saying that ignorance of the scriptures hath bred heresies: Therefore he would have heresies kept away by knowledge of the scriptures. We would the same (saith Bristol) but what maketh this for only scripture to be of authority? yes forsooth. If all heresies come through ignorance of the scriptures, that which cometh not through ignorance of the scriptures, is no heresy: And that opinion which is not contained in the scriptures, cometh not of ignorance of the scriptures: therefore he that knoweth the scriptures, knoweth all truth.  
Unto Leo the great alleging custom and tradition, I oppose his own saying, for only Scripture to be sufficient. Ep. 10. They fall into this folly, which, when they be hindered by some obscurity, to know the truth, have not recourse to the words of the Prophets, nor to the writings of the Apostles, nor to the authorities of the Gospel, but to themselves.  
He doth not say (saith Bristol) that all truths are expressed in the Scripture. For he blameth the heretic, for not having recourse to our common Creed, as though there were any thing in our common Creed, which is not expressed in the Scripture. And if only Scripture were not sufficient for men to know the truth in any obscurity, how could they be blamed for not having recourse unto them, for that which they cannot find in them? The words of the council of Constantinople the 6. Act. 18. of Bristows true translation are these: If all men had simply, and without calidity from the beginning received the Gospel's preaching, and been content with the Apostles institutions, the matters verily had been well a fine, and neither the authors of heresies, nor the fautors of the Priests, had been put to the pains of conflicts: but because the devil not resting, raiseth up his squires, therefore Christ also in time convenient hath raised up his warriors against them, to wit, the general counsels, which to this time have been holden being six in number. So expressly (saith Bristol) they avouch the authority of counsels, and you allege them for only Scriptures. I cry you mercy sir: Do they allege the authority of Counsels, as though the preaching of the Gospel, and the institutions of the Apostles in their writings were not sufficient: when they said before, if men would have been content with them, there needed no counsels? But you add, that in their words, there is no mention at all of Scripture, but only of preaching and teaching. What I pray you, is the Gospel, which they should preach no scripture? are not the constitutions of the Apostles contained in their writings? I know you will answer they are not all contained in their writings. At leastwise what sword did these warriors use against Satan, stirring up his squires? doth not the council say expressly the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God contained in the Scriptures? for what other word doth Saint Paul commend to the Eph. 6. but the holy Scripture which is profitable to reprove all heresies into perfection? 2. Tim. 3.  
Against Basil maintaining unwritten tradition I opposed his own authority, De Ver. Fid. in Proem. Moral. We know that we must now and always avoid every word and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lord. But all is not differing, saith Bristol, that is not expressed in the Scripture. Neither do I say so, but all is differing that can not be proved by Scripture. And so saith Basil in his short definition, to the first interrogation. Whether it be lawful or profitable for a man, to do or say any thing which he thinketh to be good, without testimony of the holy Scriptures: He answereth: For as much as our saviour Christ saith, that the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself, what madness is it that any man should believe any thing without the authority of God's word? Here you see, he extendeth the word of God no farther than the holy Scriptures. Yet Bristol saith: If I saw the place, my malice passeth. For the words are these. Who can be so mad, that he dare so much as to think any thing of himself? And it followeth. But because of those things & words that are in use amongst us, some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture some are omitted. Concerning them that are omitted (saith Bristol) We have this rule, to be subject to other men for God's commandment renouncing quite our own wills. In very deed I abridged the place, and gave the true sense, because it is large. But if Bristol understand basil's language, his words are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc., Seeing our Lord jesus Christ saith of the holy Ghost, for he shall not speak of himself, but what things so ever he shall hear, the same shall he speak: and of him self: the son can do nothing of himself. And again, I have not spoken of myself, but the father which hath sent me, he himself hath given me a commandment what I shall say and speak. And I know that his commandment is life eternal. Therefore the things which I speak, even as the father hath said unto me, so I speak. Who is come into so great madness, that he dare of himself take upon him any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even unto knowledge? which hath need of the holy and good spirit as a guide that he maid directed into the way of truth, both in mind and speech, and deed, but walketh blind and in darkness without the son of righteousness, yea our Lord jesus Christ, him which giveth light with his commandments as it were with beams? For the commandment of the Lord saith he is bright, lightning the eyes. Seeing then that of such things as we have in use, some are under the come mandement of God prescribed in the holy Scripture, & some are not spoken of concerning those that are written, no liberty at all is given to any man, neither to do any thing of those that are forbidden, nor to omit aught of those things which are prescribed. Seeing the Lord hath once charged and said: thou shalt keep the word which I command thee this day: thou shalt not add unto it, neither shalt thou take from it. For there is a terrible expectation of judgement and zeal of fire, which shall devour all those which shallbe bold to do any such thing. And concerning those things, which are not spoken of, the Apostle Paul hath set us a rule saying: all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify, Let no man seek his own profit but every one an other man's. So that in every matter, it is necessary to be subject to God, according to his commandment. For it is written, be ye subject one to an other in the fear of Christ.  
And our Lord saith, he that will among you be great, let him be least of all, and servant of all, that is to say, estranged from his own will, according to the imitation of our Lord himself, which saith: I came down from heaven, not that I should do mine own will, but the will of my father which hath sent me, Where hath Bristol, that we should be subject to other men in such things, as are omitted by Scripture; therefore not my malice, but his ignorance passeth, and that wilful also, although he follow the old barbarous translation of Basil when he may have a better. another place of Basil I cited in his Moral. defin. 26. Every word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture for the persuasion of good men, & the confusion of wicked men. Bristol saith, he admonisheth his monks being students in divinity, to be so perfect in the Scriptures, that they may have a text ready, at every need as when we bid them, cast all away that is not written, they have this text ready, where Saint Paul biddeth us the contrary. To hold the traditions which we have learned, whether it be by his Scripture, or by his word of mouth. 2. Thess. 2. And doth Paul bid them hold such doctrine as was not to be proved out of the Scriptures? did he preach any such doctrine among the Thessalonians, when those to whom he preached daily, searched the Scriptures, tosee if those things were even so. Act. 17. And where I pray you, did you hear any tradition by word of Saint Paul's mouth, that you may object it to us? we doubt not but whatsoever he preached was as true, as that he did put in writing, if you can assure us of it: but seeing that is impossible, and it is certain he preached no doctrine but such as he committed to writing, basil's rule must still stand in force, that every word and deed must have confirmation of holy scripture, or else it is not good, for all good works are taught in the Scripture, and all true doctrine may be found in them. 1. Tim. 3.  
Now cometh Bristol, to answer such things as I object out of Augustine against unwritten traditions: which he digesteth into three sorts. The first are quotations of 11. or 12. places in which he preferreth the authority of the canonical Scripture, before all writings of Catholic Doctors of Bishops, of Counsels, before all customs and traditions.  
But this Bristol denieth to be the question, but whether nothing but Scripture be of authority: I answer, those places prove that nothing is of infallible verity, but the scriptures, therefore they prove that they only are of irrefragable authority.  
The second sort of places are about this question, who hath the true Church. Of which question I affirm, that S. Augustine would have the Church sought only in the Scriptures. And he●e he biddeth me read his first demand, likewise I will send him to mine answer unto the same. At length he confesseth, that Augustine is content in that question, to set aside all other authorities, to try it by the Scriptures: But that nothing else is good authority in that question, that he never sayeth. Neither do we say it, or refuse any authority, that is agreeable to the Scriptures. And as that one question, which was between S. Augustine, and the Donatists was determinable by the only authority of Scriptures, so are all questions that are between the Church of all times, and all heretics.  
The Donatists held that the Church was perished out of all parts of the world, except Africa, as the Papists hold, that it is perished out of all parts except a piece of Europa. Saint Augustine by the Scripture proveth, the continuance in the Church dispersed over all the world, and that we hold against the romish synagogue of Popish Donatists, who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, into the function of an Italian Priest, as the other did of an African. But Bristol sayeth, I am as blind as a beetle, in saying that the Papists did separate themselves from our Church, seeing it is certain, that Luther did separate himself from the Popish Church. The like might be said to all them that forsook the fellowship of any heretics, to come unto the Church of God.  
But Bristol is as mad as a march Hare, that bragging so much of the title of the church, he is driven to try it only by the Scriptures, as Augustine calleth upon the Donatists. The other places which I allege out of Aug, (saith Bristol) are about all questions with heretics, whatsoever. As that he would oppress the Arrian Maximinus with the authority of the Nicene council. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Bristol asketh, whether he might not press them with the authority thereof, as he doth the Donatists? But ask Augustine himself who saith, he ought not in that case, that he charged the Donatists, which it was by their own concession, because they allowed it. But he saith in the same place, the Fathers of the Nicene council ratified Homoousion, that is, equality of the son with the father, Veritatis autoritate, & autoritatis veritate, by authority of truth, and by truth of authority. This truth of authority, Bristol will have to be the authority of the Nicene council, as though the council could not err: but than what needed the authority of truth? In deed where the council decreeth with the truth, it is the truth of authority, for other authority a Council hath not, but of truth: to declare truth, and not to make truth, for if it declare error, as the council of Arimine did, it hath no truth of authority, because it hath no authority of truth. Moreover Bristol saith, I translate falsely these words, Nec ego huius autoritate, nec tuillius detineris. Neither am I bounden to the authority of the one, nor thou of the other. Whereas it should be: Neither doth the authority of the one hold me, nor of the other hold thee. There is great difference between, being holden, and being bound. To the bare authority of the council of Nice, Maximinus was no more bounden, than Augustine to the bare authority of Ariminum. It was the truth of Nice, that the Arrian was bound unto, and the falsehood of Ariminum, that Augustine was not holden with us. But after the example of Augustine (saith Bristol) we will not allege the council of Trent, as our proper witnesses to our side, but the authority of Scriptures common to both. Witness hereof, Bristow'S motives, where he would overthrow us by the bare name of Catholic, and heretic, etc. Again he saith, that we make challenge of 600. years also. And what then? Witnesses of truth we take wheresoever they be, but authority of truth only out of the Scriptures. Where I said, that Augustine, setting all other persuasions aside, provoketh only to the Scriptures, to try the faith and doctrine of the Church: Bristol answereth: How true that is, appeareth in the same book, De unitate Eccle. which you cite. For when he hath proved against the Donatists, the Church to be his, he saith expressly, that to be enough also, for all other questions. Sufficit nobis: It is enough for us that we have that Church, which is pointed too, by most manifest testimonies of the holy and Canonical Scriptures. De unit Eccle. Cap. 19 Doth he say expressly, it is enough for all other questions? I must needs say expressly you lie. For the only question, being how the Donatists should be received, if they would come to the Catholic Church, as though they were the true Church, because baptism given among them was not repeated in the Catholic Church, Augustine after much concertation saith. Quapropter cum dicatur haereticis, etc. Wherefore seeing it is said to the heretics: righteousness is wanting to you, which without charity, and the bond of peace, no man can have, & seeing they themselves confess, that many have baptism, which have not righteousness, and if they would not confess it, the holy Scripture convinceth them, I marvel how they think, when we will not baptize them again, having not their own, but the baptism of Christ, that we do so, as though we judged nothing to be now wanting to them & that because baptism is not given to them in the Catholic Church, which they are found to have already, they think they receive nothing there, where they receive that without which, that which they have, availeth them to their destruction, and not to their salvation. Which if they will not understand, it is sufficient for us, that we hold that Church, which is showed forth by most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures. Where he speaketh not of the authority of the Church to determine questions, but showeth it is sufficient to have proved by the Scriptures, that they are the true Church, although the Heretics will not understand how baptism being ministered out of the Church, hath not effect, but in the true Church, for if it be manifest by the Scriptures that Augustine holdeth the true Church, that last question of theirs, how they should be received, though it be not resolved, yet can not disprove them to be the true Church, nor prove the Donatists to be the Church, seeing there can be but one.  
Where out of this Book Cap. 16. I show, that Augustine declareth, first that Heretics must be confuted only by Scriptures, secondly that neither councils, succession of bishops universality, miracles, visions, dreams nor revelations, are the notes to try the Catholic Church, but only the Scriptures: Bristol saith, they are notes with the Scripture, as he hath showed in his demand, I answer whatsoever agreeth with the Scripture, may well be received. But the Scripture without all these is sufficient, to try the Church as Augustine showeth, & therefore all the rest of Bristow'S motives, might be spared, if he durst join issue upon the Scripture only, as Augustine doth, but that he dare not do. He hath a great quarrel of Augustine, for translating manifestatur is proved, as though Augustine said, that true miracles and visions lack weight and fashion of just probation. If you call true miracles, that are done indeed and not counterfeited, I say that all such make no just probation. For God tempteth his Church by such, to see if they will forsake his commandment. Deut. 13. But those that be true miracles indeed, are joined with the truth of doctrine, which being tried by the word of God to be such, confirm it or prepare men's minds unto it, of themselves never sufficient to avouch true doctrine, without God's word: and therefore I will still translate, manifestatur is manifestly proved or showed, which is alone.  
Moreover out of Augustine Cont. Epist. sundam. Cap. 4. I showed, that though consent, and universality, antiquity, succession, be good confirmation, when they are joined with truth: yet when truth is severed from them, it is more to be regarded than they all. Bristol saith, that Augustine granteth not that the truth can be separated from them. Yes verily, or else he should have stood upon that point only, that truth can not be severed from those marks, which undoubtedly the Catholic Church had, and the Manichees wanted. And although he said, the Church had most sincere wisdom, yet he saith not, that wheresoever was antiquity, succession, etc. there must needs be the most sincere wisdom.  
Lastly out of the book De Pastoribus Cap. 14. I affirmed, that man's authority is too weak to carry away so weighty a matter, as was in question, using the words of Augustine: Auferantur chartae humanae, etc. Let men's papers be removed, let the voices of God be heard, show me one place of Scripture for Donatus side, etc. Bristol rehearsing the saying more at large as I did, Ar. 14. asketh what maketh all this for Fulke? unless he thinketh he hath any vantage in his own false translation of Acta, turning it decrees. Surely whether the word be well or ill translated, I seek no vantage thereof, and yet if I should change my translations, I would rather call Acta acts of the Court or records, then Courtrolles as you do. But every man may see, what vantage you clasp at, among ignorant persons, by your false translation of Chartae humanae mens Court papers, as though the word of Augustine were not general to remove all men's writings, and to urge only the Scripture. But the Church beginning at Jerusalem & spreading over all Nations, to the very last time, which Augustine in all places proveth against the Donatists, maketh much against us in Bristow'S opinion. Nay rather against the Papists, which restrain the Church into the romish rabble, which we affirm, both is and was always, scattered over all the world, although greater in number at some times then at other some, seeing that Mahomet hath infected a great part of the world, and yet among the Mahometists we doubt not but Christ hath his members, that never bowed their knee either to Mahomet of Mecha, or to the Pope of Rome.   

3 About certain traditions. 
Bristol.   
The oblations Pro natalitiis spoken of before Cap. 6. Par. 1. 5. I said those oblations, with other superstitions 
Fulke.  fathered upon tradition of the Apostles, by the Nicen, & other counsels, as Rhenanus witnesseth, are abrogated.  
Bristol answereth that he speaketh never a word of any other traditions. Yet Bristol confesseth himself, that many of them are abrogated. Cap. 6. Par. 1. 4. & 5.   

4 About the marriage of Votaries. 
Bristol   
The two places one of Epiphanius, the other of Hieronyme, which I cited for the Marriage of Votaries, 
Fulke.  Bristo we sayeth are about a matter, which they hold even as those fathers did. But in deed they hold the contrary, for they held the marriage of such lawful, the Papists dissolve them, and say they are no marriages. It is better saith Epiphanius, to have one sin, and not many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course, opennly to take a wife according to the law, and of long time to repent from his virginity, and so to be brought again to the Church, as one that hath done amiss, as one that is fallen and broken & having need to be bound, rather than to be wounded daily with privy darts, of that wickedness, which the devil putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preach, these are the medicines of healing. Bristol saith, I gather that marriage is an wholesome medicine for such men. Contrary to that I confess myself, that he calleth it a sin.  
But he slandereth me as he doth often: I said Epiphanius doth count it an offence to marry, because it was a breach of vow, but neither he, nor I, said that marriage is a sin Bristol saith likewise, the Apostles tradition calleth it a sin. But he slandereth the tradition or Epiphanius the reporter thereof even as he did me. The words are Hae. 61. Tradiderunt, etc. The holy Apostles of God have delivered, that it is a sin after virginity decreed, to be turned to marriage. They say not marriage is a sin, but by breach of vow to marry is a sin. For their sin cannot pollute the ordinance of God. But the wholesome medicines are penance & reconciliation, saith Bristol. And why not marriage I pray you? whatsoever is good for the diseased, is an wholesome medicine: to take a wife openly, is good for the diseased: therefore marriage also is a wholesome medicine. As for your distinction of solemn vow, and sole vow is a very babble: Epiphanius speaketh generally of all that had vowed virginity.  
To the place of Jerome Ad Demetriadem, he answereth that they which of two sins will needs commit one, they counsel them to commit the less rather than the greater. But Hierom maketh no comparison of sins, but saith to such virgins as lived incontinently. It must be plainly said to them, that either they should marry if they cannot contain, or else they should contain if they will not marry.   

5. About the real presence and transubstantiation. 
Bristol.   
About these points I will not stand, considering I 
Fulke.  have written so much already in confutation of Heskins and Sanders, and that Bristol bringeth nothing nor half so much as hath been refelled in their books concerning these places.  
Where I said, it was not the belief of S. Aug. that the sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. Bristol asketh if it be his mystical body, or whether Christ have any more bodies. It were an easy matter to show that it is called by Augustine the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, but I pardon Bristow'S ignorance: and answer him, that the sacrament is neither his natural, nor his mystical body in proper speech, But secundum quendam modum, as Aug. saith, after a certain manner, both, And I read in Theodoret of a third body, which the sacrament is, De typico symbolicoque corpore, a typical or sacramental body.  
The place of Augustine in Psalm. 58. with the cavillation of Adoration, which Bristol maketh, is examined in mine answer to Heskins. Lib. 2. Cap. 45. And in mine answer to Saunder. Lib. 6. Cap. 2.  
The place of Augustine, which I translated word for word, and faithfully gave the sense thereof, as every man may see that readeth it, Purg. 309. Bristol shamefully perverteth, setting the cart before the horse, in rehearsing of it to make a contrary sense. But even in that same book and Chapter De Trinitate, Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Augustine is clear, against that monstrous opinion of transubstantiation, speaking of signs, & namely of the bread which is spent in receiving of the sacrament: Sed quia haec, etc. But because these things are known to men, because they are done by men, they may have honour, as religious things, but wonder as miracles, they cannot have. Whereof if he had known the carnal presence, & change of the bread, such as the papists speak of, he must needs have acknowledged many wonders and miracles contrary to the order of nature, which they are constrained to feign, although no man can see them, whereas all corporal miracles wrought by God are sensible  
The place of justinus with Bristow'S cavil confuted, is in mine answer to Heskins Lib. 2. Cap. 43. The place of Irenaeus in the same answer. Lib. 2. Cap. 4●. And Theodoret the last Doctor that I cited, who perchance might he ignorant of transubstantiation (saith Bristol) because it was not clearly defined to be in form and matter, before the last council of Trent, you shall find with his cavil confuted Lib. 3. Cap. ●2. & 56. Against Sanders book of the sacrament. Lib. 6. Cap. 5.   

6 About the sacrament of penance. Absolution. 
Bristol   
About the sacrament of penance, the Popish Church 
Fulke.  saith four things: first that by the priests absolution, the guilt of sin and eternal pains due for it are taken away, but one hours torment in Purgatory, as the master of the sentences teacheth, is not taken away thereby, and Allen confesseth (Bristol saith) it availeth to take away the torments of hell. But Allen Purg. 167. requiring submission to God's ministers for absolution, giveth them in most ample manner a commission of executing Christ's office in earth, both for pardoning and punishing of sin: that suffering here in his Church sentence and just judgement for his offences, he may the rather escape our father's grievous chastisement in the life to come. Thus Allen is clean contrary to Bristol, and himself, and left naked in this place, as almost in all places, by Bristol, who would seem to take upon him his defence.  
The second thing is temporal debt, remaining after absolution. Touching this matter, I said Purg. 42. That Augustine saith of the deaths of Moses and Aaron, that they were signs of things to come, not punishments of God's displeasure. Quaest. in Num. lib. 4. cap. 53. Here Bristol complaineth of my sincerity, and rehearseth the words before. When it is said to them, that they should be gathered to their people: It is manifest, that they be not in the wrath of God, which separateth from the peace of the holy eternal society. Thereby it is manifest, that also their deaths were signs of things to come, & not punishments of God's indignation. What want of sincerity is here, except there be so great difference between indignation and displeasure? But Bristol cavilleth of the wrath that separateth for ever, as though they were in a wrath that separateth for a time. Yet the scripture presseth, where God said you shall die, because you did not believe me. This was no satisfaction for their temporal debt remaining after absolution, whereof the question is, but a fatherly correction to them, and an example unto other. Yea such a correction as was a greater benefit, namely to be received into the eternal land of promise, than the punishment was, that they should not enter into the earthly possession.  
Likewise I reported, that Augustine Cont. Faust. Lib. 22. Cap. 67. and De Pecc. mer. ac rem. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. saith that the punishment laid upon David after ●his adultery remitted, was the chastisement of God's fatherly scourge. Bristol asketh, if it be no punishment, because it is a scourge? yes verily: and whether it be not for sin? yes truly. But never the sooner a temporal debt remaining after absolution, when it is the scourge of a father's chastisement. For I chastise not my child, that his punishment should satisfy any part of his fault, but to keep him in humility, and fear for committing the like, and for example to the rest of my family, as wise a father and divine as Bristol will esteem me. And how can Bristol defend Augustine against the Pelagians, showing why death that came in by sin, still remaineth even upon them whose original sins he confesseth to be so fully forgiven in baptism, that they own nothing, neither eternally nor temporally for them: if death in such, be any temporal debt, remaining after absolution, when he will have the fatherly scourge of God to be a punishment to satisfy the debt of sin.  
But for a contradictory of Allens assertion, I cited out of Chrysostom in Rom. Ho. 8. where there is forgiveness, there is no punishment. Bristol saith, he speaketh of the forgiveness in baptism to a jew: Allen of forgiveness in penance. But he may not creep out at that hole, it is too strait for him. Chrysostom speaketh generally, wheresoever there is forgiveness, there is no punishment, yea he saith, Vbi gratia ibi & venia, where grace is, there is forgiveness therefore if there be grace in penance there is forgiveness, and where there is forgiveness, there shallbe no punishment: neither doth Chrysostom in that place speak a word, either of jew, or Baptism, but of all Christians escaping by grace, the wrath which the law worketh, and being made heirs of the promise by faith.  
The third thing is satisfaction, against which, Bristol saith, I alleged Chrysostom, and Ambrose so fond, that the words which I allege will declare, Chrysost. De Compunct. Cord. lib. 1. Non requirit, etc. God requireth not the burden of shirts of hair, nor to be shut up in the straits of a little cell, neither doth he command us to sit in obscure and dark caves: This only is that which is required of us, that we always remember our sins. He requireth only compunction of the heart, therefore he requireth no works of satisfaction, neither those, nor any other. Bristol will see nothing, but the straight mourning of Monks. The word only is so little for his purpose, that he cannot see it. And when he hath praised this mourning as much as he can, Chrysostom saith it is besides God's commandment.  
To the place of Ambrose in Luc. 22. lib. 10. He saith of Peter. I read of his tears, I read not of his satisfaction. Bristol replieth, that he saith immediately before, I find not what he said, I find that he wept. Whereupon he will gather, both confession, and satisfaction necessary. I would feign see that collection in a syllogism.  
Surely if they were both necessary, S. Peter, by judgement of Ambrose, lacked two necessary points of repentance, which judas had, and yet obtained not forgiveness: But tears (saith he) are a special kind of confession and satisfaction. And yet where Ambrose sayeth, they obtain pardon, Bristol saith, they are not sufficient: so that Peter weeping, having beside his inward contrition a special kind of confession and satisfaction, had not that which would serve. But Br. leaving this place as obscure, referreth us to a plain place. Ad vir. Lap. c. 8. For a passing great crime, is necessary a passing great satisfaction. whereto I answered before, that an heinous offence must be earnestly bewailed, if the repentance be not counterfeit, Brist. saith, He doubted not of her repentance to be unfeigned. What then? He exhorteth her to continue her repentance, not for satisfaction to God, whose justice cannot be satisfied by man's work, but by her earnest sorrow, to satisfy the Church which was offended by her whoredom.  
The fourth thing is pardons, whereof Bristol speaketh as he doth commonly, with wonderful confusion. I said the old satisfaction was in respect of the offence unto the Church, and not to satisfy the justice of God, which is not satisfied but by the death of Christ. The penance enjoined by the Church, upon good consideration, might be and often was released by the Church, as appeareth by many places of Cyprian, which Bristol citeth and many other, but not by the Bishop only, and this release or remission, was called indulgence or pardon, which is no more like to Popish pardons, than the creaking of a goose, is like the song of a swan. But as for pardoning of sin, they affirmed that it was proper to God, as Ambrose to the virgin. Stick to penance even to the end of thy life, and presume not that pardon may be given thee of man's day, for he deceiveth thee that so promiseth the. For thou that haste in special sinned against the Lord, it is meet that of him only thou look for remedy in the day of judgement. Bristol saith, He did bind her to penance all her life, bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hand, as he bound the Emperor Theodosius indefinitely, and loosed him after eight months penance, with a pardon. Who seethe not, quoth Bristol, that all this maketh plainly for pardons?  
But Ambrose telleth her, not, that he would not pardon her, but that no man can pardon the offence committed against God, and that if the Pope himself should promise to pardon her, he should but deceive her. And yet the Church might pardon the offence and slander where with they were justly offended, by her whoredom, and restore her to the Communion, as I doubt not but they did; although she should continue her repentance, all the days of her life, & when Ambrose did bind and loose the Emperor, he did only use the discipline of the Church, to bring him to repentance, that God might forgive his sins, not that he might make satisfaction for the slaughter of 7000. men, of whom the greatest part were innocents by 8. months penance, but after such time, seeing him to be sorrowful in deed, received him again into the communion. The place of Cyprian In Sermon. de Lapsis is very clear to show that God and not man, forgiveth the sins. Let no man deceive himself, let no man beguile himself, only our Lord can give mercy, only he can grant pardon to sins, as being committed against him, who hath borne our sins, who hath suffered sorrow for us, whom God hath delivered for our sins. Man cannot be greater than God, neither can the servant by his indulgence remit or forgive that which by so great offence, is committed against the Lord, lest this offence also be added to him, that is fallen, if he know not that it is foreshowed, Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man. Our Lord must be entreated, our Lord must be pacified, with our satisfaction, which saith, he doth deny that man that denieth him.  
Against this so plain a place: Bristol cavilleth, that he speaketh to impenitents, that trusted also in lay men's pardons: which is false, for they were not altogether impenitent, but not sufficiently repentant, neither did they trust in lay men's pardons, but without dew repentance tried, made haste to be reconciled by entreaty of the Martyrs, yet with the hurtful facility of the priests, whereof Cyprian complaineth: Sic oportet Dei Sacerdotem: So it behoveth the priest of God not to deceive with the deceivable yielding, but to provide with wholesome remedies. As for the pardons whose antiquity Bristol would have to be noted, were not pardons of sins, but release of time of separation enjoined by the Church to show repentance for their sins, as I declared before. Which is even as ancient as the Gospel, whereas popish pardons Apoena & culpa, are of a much newer stamp, and contrary to the ancient custom in the givers, for they were given by the whole Church, in the persons, for they were given to men a live only, in the time, for they were given but of a short time of penance enjoined in this life, and not of so many thousand years, etc. in the thing released, for they were neither pardons of punishment, nor of sin dew to God's justice, but of time of satisfaction to be made to the Church, when the Church was otherwise satisfied.   

7 Of Purgatory, of the Canonical memento, of oblations, & 
Bristol.  of sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church.  
Bristol chargeth me to use the arguments from 
Fulke.  men's authority negatively, which I myself confess to be nought, but he mistaketh the matter: I said the order of prayers and administration of the holy mysteries, described by justinus, and Tertullian, do sufficiently declare what was the usage of the Christians in those purer times, in which no mention being made of oblations and sacrifice for the dead, it is certain, there was none used, not only because there is no mention, but because those two old Fathers in their Apologies, declare whatsoever was done in their assemblies. As for oblations for the dead, that Tertullian speaketh of, cannot be proved to have been used at the communion, but rather at the burial of the dead. But Arnobius (saith Bristol) about the very same time, as a witness to the contrary, complaining that the connenticle houses of the Christians, were pulled down by the Pagans, in which God is prayed unto, peace, & pardon is asked, for all men, for the Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the living and for the dead. Such a saying there is in Arnobius, Lib. 4. Con. gra. I confess, but how proveth Bristol, that he was about the time of justinus, or Tertullian, when he confesseth it was 300, years since Christians were named, Lib. 1? and under Dioclesian he flourished, saith Jerome, which was six or seven score years after Tertullian, the later of the two who flourished under Severus.  
The old liturgy of the Greek Church in Epiphanius time, had a memory of the dead, but seeing it was an oblation for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, etc. in the first institution thereof, it could be but an offering of thanks giving, although Epiphanius expounded it after the error of this time, to be a prayer for the sinner, & a separation of Christ from the order of men. This is the effect of that I said. Bristol saith, I am deceived, by thinking it is but one memory, whereof Epiphanius speaketh, and sendeth me to the counterfeit liturgies of Saint james, Chrysostom, and Basil, which were written long after their age, according as well to the error of the time, in which they were written, as in some expressing the name of the Emperor, and Bishop, in whose time they were written. Also he sendeth me to divers places of S. Augustine, but which I know not, for the place Encherid C. 110. & Dulci. q. 4. are of one sacrifice offered for all baptised persons that are departed, which he saith for the very good are thanksgiving, for them that were not very ill ask of mercy, for the very ill no help, but a comfort of the living. Chrysostom also speaketh of a general memory of all that were departed, instituted by the Apostles Ad Philip. hom. 3. in which if there had been an express form of prayer for the dead, he needed not of that memory, to have proved prayer to be profitable to the dead. The place of Origen he mangleth, even as his Master Allen doth, but he more usually, suffering no sentence of any writer almost to be read together, without prejudice of his interlacing. In job lib 3. The former men did celebrate the day of their birth, loving but one life, and not hoping for any other after this. But now do we not celebrate the day of nativity, seeing it is the entrance of sorrows & temptations, but we celebrate the day of death, as that which is the putting away of all sorrows, & the escaping of all temptations. We celebrate the day of death, because they do not die that seem to die. Therefore also do we make memories of the Saints, & devoutly keep the memories of our parents or friends, dying in the faith, as much rejoicing in their rest, as desiring also for ourselves a godly finishing in faith. So therefore we do not celebrate the day of nativity, because they which die shall live perpetually. And thus we celebrate it, calling together the devout men with the Priests, the faithful with the Clergy, inviting also the needy and poor, filling the fatherless and widows with food, that our festivity may be done in remembrance of the rest, which is unto the souls departed, whose memory we celebrate, and may be made of us a savour of sweetness in the sight of the eternal God. First concerning my translation, Bristol will have Religiosos to signify Monks, as though none were devout, but they, or as though the Church in Origens' time, were so full of Monks, as it was afterward. Secondly he saith, that death is a putting away of the sorrows of this life only, where Origen saith of all, and it were small cause of rejoicing, to put off the small sorrows of this life, if men should enter the horrible torments of Purgatory. Again, the rest of the dead, he will have to be only of their bodies. That were a poor refrigerium, if their souls should fry in Purgatory. The savour of sweetness he will not have to be a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but a work meritorious, as though it was a work meritorious, that No offered clean beasts after the flood, when the text saith, the Lord smelled a sweet savour, Gen. 8. and not rather a sacrifice of thanksgiving for his deliverance. The like ignorance (he saith) I show, to think that memory for one, cannot be a prayer for him. As S. Paul to the Colloss. Remember my gives: and to the hebrews, Remember them that are in gives, etc. But where did I say so ignorantly, that prayer may not be joined with remembrance? For I trust Bristol is not so brutish, to say that all memory is a prayer. But how skilful is he, to compare the memory of imprisonment, which is an admonition to pray for the imprisoned, with the memory of rest which being obtained, what should we pray for? As for the words in S. james his Mass, which was written by some Sir james, many hundredth years after Origens' death, I cannot be persuaded that Origen should allude unto them.  
Where Cyprian saith, that Victor deserved not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests, I showed by diverse good reasons, that he meaneth not of prayer for him, but such as was of thanksgiving for the dead, and for the like godly departure of the faithful living. For his offence in making a Clerk executor, was not to be punished with eternal torments, whereto Bristol answereth by telling of three things done in their Mass, which he saith were done in Cyprians time, but that is the matter in controversy. my reasons alleged Pur. 284. he toucheth not at all.  
I noted Pur. 259. that Allen had falsified 2. councils at once, the Council of Carthage the 4, Cap. 95. & the Council of Vase, which speaking of such executors as defrauded the Church of the oblations of the dead, which they had bequeathed to the use of the poor: Allen saith to excommunicate them, that hinder the oblations for the dead. Now cometh Bristol and saith, it is but mere cavilling to distinguish oblations of the dead, & oblations for the dead, because Cyprian saith, there should be no offering for Victor. I have showed, Pur. 284. that this offering was but a thanksgiving, and this discipline was not to cut him from the Church, but an admonition to other. As for the other councils of Toledo 11. Bracharense, with this of Carthage and Vase, I have answered Pur. 426. against which, Bristol here saith nothing, but repeateth them with his usual interlardings.  
The Council Bracharense, which I twice promised to show forth against Purgatory, when I came to it, Bristol saith, I plainly confess the contrary, to wit a memory for the dead. I said that for them that kill themselves, that Council decreed, that no commemoration should be made. Ca 34. & what this commemoration i●, I said it appeareth in the next Canon, where they call it the commemoration of the holy oblation, that is, they decreed, that no communion should be celebrated, in which being a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, no mention of them that so died should be in their thanksgiving, as was used for them that died well.  
Out of the 3. Toletan. Cap 22. I showed that it was decreed that the bodies of the faithful should be buried only with singing of psalms, which must be thought sufficient for all Christians: this I said, excluded both prayers and oblations for the dead.  
Bristol cavilleth, that although in carrying the corpse to the grain, they used to sing psalms, yet they might have prayer & oblation for their souls in the Church. I answer, the council thinketh singingof psalms sufficient for the office of their burial, therefore prayer and oblation were thought needless. But that they had prayer and oblation in Spain, for the dead, he would prove by a saying of Augustine De cur. pro mor. Cap. 1. where he saith the custom of the universal Church is, that in the prayers of the priest, which are made to God at the altar, the commendation also of the dead hath his place. This commendation might be without prayer, as in the old liturgy the oblation for all the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles etc. or if it were in special form of prayer for the dead in Africa, it proveth not that it was in Spain. For Augustine speaketh of the universal Church, no farther than his own knowledge, or if it were in his time, it might afterward be reform in Spain, as divers other errors were, namely in that Council of Toledo, and other before it. But Bristol urgeth me farther, and saith, I might as well say, the Papists pray not for the dead, because they carry the corpse with psalms. But he will never see the little word, only, joined in the Canon to psalms, nor the sufficiency of the office for the burial of all Christians. Again he demandeth of De profundis, being a psalm, Is it not a prayer for the dead, trow you? I trow no. Except all prayers that men make for themselves, be prayers for the dead.  
As for the burial of papists, claimed by ministers in England, I think you bely them, for they could be content you had all the obstinate papists in your bosom at Loveine, quick and dead: But such as die among us, we are not nice in denying them burial in the usual cemiteries, although we communicate not with them in their life, yet always protesting, that more severe discipline were meet for them in their life, and to be executed upon them even in their death, after the example of Cyprians time although we think worse of them then Cyprian did of Victor.  
I said farther, that the place of Possidonius speaking of the funeral of Saint Augustine, proveth that the sacrifice offered for the commending of his body's deposition, was the sacrifice of thanksgiving. Here first Bristol accuseth mine ignorance in antiquity, that I understand deposition for the putting of his body by death, where it is the laying down of it in the earth, as Levatio corporis, is the taking up of Saints bodies or relics, a worshipful witness of antiquity. For Cyrillus testifieth that they were not in his time taken out of the earth Lib. 10. Cont. julian. But mark how skilfully Bristol expoundeth Possidonius, saying, The sacrifice was offered to God, for the commending of his body's deposition. That is, saith Bristol (expositione prima) for the laying down of it in the earth by burying. Why might not his body be laid in the grave without a propitiatory sacrifice? The second exposition is, that by commending the deposition of his body, which is the laying it down in the grave, he meaneth, the commendation of his soul to God.  
With such expositions he may prove what he will out of the Doctors. But to admit this monstrous interpretation, how agreeth it with popery? or Augustine's own opinion, that seeing he was a perfect man & died in persecution, while his City was besieged, & the same day it was taken, that any sacrifice, should be offered for his soul, seeing he himself saith, it is injury to pray for a Martyr, De Verb. Ap. 517? But that prayers for the dead were used in Saint Augustine's time, and at the celebration of the Lords Supper, it is not of me denied, and therefore needed not of Bristol to be proved. But he will make me both answerer and replier, Because I grant that S. Augustine prayed for his parent, and yet taunt Allen for translating Memoriam sui, a memory of her to be a memory for her, as though she would have her son to be a chantry Priest, to sing for her.  
First I say, that if the Pope himself, translate Memoriam sui, a memory for her, the translation is false. Secondly, where he saith, the sacrifice of our price was offered for her: I showed that before, that so he called the celebration of the lords Supper, understanding it nevertheless not to be the sacrifice itself, that being once offered, did perfectly redeem us, but a memory and thanksgiving for the same, as I showed out of Augustine and other Doctors, Pur. 316. and so forth in the rest unto the leaf 327.  
Finally, Bristol citeth Augustine De Verb. Ap. Hom. 34. This as a tradition of our Fathers, the whole Church doth observe, that for them which are departed in the communion of Christ's body and blood, when at the healthful sacrifice they are remembered in their place, prayer is made, and it is rehearsed that it is offered for them also: I answer this oblation, being general for all that are departed in the faith of Christ, can be but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, considering that the sacrifice of bread and wine, as they called it, in remembrance of the only and insacrificable sacrifice of Christ, as S. Augustine calleth his propitiatory sacrifice, could be no propitiation, but a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or prosperity, or praise. August. Contra Faustum lib. 6. lib. 20. Cap. 18. & 21. Contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. 19 20. and many other places through out his works.   

Of particular Doctors. Whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatory. 
Bristol.   
That Saint Augustine allowed prayer for the dead, Bristol citeth many places but without need, seeing 
Fulke.  I contesse it: but that he never doubted of Purgatory, that is not proved thereby. The Grecians at this day deny Purgatory, yet do they allowpraier for the dead. Whereas I cited Saint Augustine Encher. Chapter. 69. It is not incredible, that such a thing is done, even after this life, and whether it be so or no, it may be inquired. And either it may be found out or remain hid, that some faithful men by a certain Purgatory fire, by how much more or less they have loved perishing goods, to be saved sooner or later: yet not such of whom it is said, that they shall not possess the kingdom of GOD, except the same crimes be remitted to them conveniently repenting.  
Bristow'S answer is, that there are two Purgatory fires, the one to punish souls for sin, whereof S. Augustine is certain: the other not to punish sin, but only to wear out by little & little, such affections to worldly lawful things, as to wive, etc. that without grief of mind, he cannot part from them, so as the other which builded Gold, etc. whereof Augustine is uncertain. afterward he concludeth, they are two operations of one Purgatory, the one to purge sin with punishment, the other to purge worldly lawful affections. If there be but one Purgatory fire, Augustine doubteth not only of the punishment, but of the purging fire. But Augustine speaketh not of purging lawful affections, for what purgation should there need, where no unlawful thing is to be purged? But of unlawful affections of worldly lawful things, which are loved so far above measure, that they cannot be lost for Christ's sake, without grief: these Cupiditates greedy desires, Augustine calleth the wood, Straw, and stubble, which is builded upon the foundation Christ, upon whom it is sin to build any thing, but Gold, Silver, or pearls, etc. 1. Cor. 3. so that it is sin that Augustine speaketh of. Whereof he doubteth, whether it is purged by a Purgatory fire after this life. Again utterly excluding impenitent sinners, from hope of this purging fire, it is manifest, that of penitent sinners he maketh this doubt, whether they may be saved by this Purgatory fire, after their death. Wherefore Bristows distinction is clean contrary to Augustine's meaning. Likewise where he maketh a doubt whether such worldly lawful affections remain in the souls of the elect, departed, as love of wife etc. he shamefully slandereth Saint Augustine, as though he held any such opinion, when no such thing can be gathered out of his words falsifying to his purpose the Doctor's words, which are Rerum secularium quamuis licitè concessarum tales cupiditates: Such greedy desires of worldly, although things lawfully granted, to call them such worldly lawful affections, whereas Augustine saith not, that such affections are lawful, but that the worldly things are lawful, on which such affection is set. Likewise Ad Dulci. question. prima. he bringeth for example, a certain carnal affection toward riches, a cogitation of those things which are of this world, how a man should please his wife etc. to be this wood, hay, etc. and likewise doubtfully concludeth whether therefore in this life only, men suffer these things, or whether certain such judgements follow after this life etc. excluding again murderers, fornicators, liars perjurers, etc. The like doubt he maketh De Civit. Dei Lib 21. Ca 26. saying, that peradventure it is true that this purging fire is in this lite only, peradventure after this life only, or both in this life and after, but yet for all men to pass through, the perfect without sense, they that are entangled with these venial sins, with sense of pain and loss etc.  
But Augustine (saith Bristol) showeth himself certain of purging pains De Civitate Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 24. saying it is certain that such men are purged before Doomsday by temporal pains etc. As for this place, being not found in many ancient written copies as vives showeth, seemeth to be a corrupted place added by other, not written by Augustine. The like may be suspected of the place Cap. 13. of the same Book, where he reporteth what he had said before of remitting sins in the world to come, which yet is not to be found in that Book, as for the places of Enchirid. Cap. 110. and Ad Dulc. 〈◊〉. 2. which he quoteth, have nothing but of prayers for the dead. Wherefore Augustine although he allowed prayer for the dead, to avail them remaining in secret receptacles, as he termeth them Enchirid. Cap. 109. yet he was not certain of Purgatory. Touching invocation of Saints (which I confessed Augustine to allow according to the error of his time) and prayers to be profitable for the dead, I said Pur. 317. that Augustine is full of doubts and questions in the matter, and first whether the mother's supplication to the Martyr profited her son, Augustine said, that did profit him buried in the holy place, if any thing profited. Whereof I gathered, that he speaks doubtfully. Bristol crieth out that I am passed all shame: for Augustive never doubted whether such supplication might profit, but whether the mother had any such cogitation. I answer, he doubted at least, whether such kind of supplication did profit or no: for the doubt of her cogitation was expressed before in an other condition, Si quidem credidit, if she believe, etc. But to refel my impudency, as it should seem, he hath heaped up a sort of places, to prove that Saint Augustine clearly affirmed supplication to Saints to profit the dead: first, Non inaniter fiun●, they be not made in vain. Cap. 1. But these words are not in that Chapter. He saith there Neque Ecclesia inaniter, Neither the Church nor the friends care for the dead bestoweth in vain such devotion as it can: where he speaketh of prayers for the dead, but not of supplication to the Martyrs. Secondly he citeth Prosunt quibusdam mortuis, they profit one sort of the dead Cap. vlt. but neither are there such words, nor for such purpose. Thirdly, Non sunt praetermittende, they must not be omitted, C● 4. also, Fiunt recta fide, ac pietate, they be made with right faith, and piety, Cap. 4. These words in deed are there, but of prayers for the dead generally, although there also in the same Chapter to his purpose which he noteth not: last of all, Religiosus amicus, etc. they be necessary, the devout friend must in no case omit them Ca 5. the necessary supplications he speaketh of, are prayers generally, not that prayer to saints, are of him called necessary supplications. But unto all the other doubts, which I in the place above quoted, had noted out of that treatise of Augustine Bristol speaketh not a word.   

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

Other Doctors about prayer for the dead. 
Bristol.   
I cited Purg. 382. Gelasius 24. 92. C. Legatur, That no man can be absolved of the Pope after his death: and 
Fulke.  wherefore then serve the Pope's Pardons? Bristol answereth, that all their suffrages are only for them that die in their communion, and not for excommunicate persons. Very well: yet are you not escaped. For where is the Pope's commission for pardoning? Quodeunque, etc. Whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, it shallbe loosed in heaven, etc. if this be your commission, as well for giving pardons, as for absolving excommunicate persons, this commission cannot be exercised but upon the living. We read, saith Gel●sius, that Christ did raise the dead: we read not that he did absolve them that died in error. (If I had pleasure to interlard the Doctors sayings as you have, I should add that we read not that Christ gave pardon to any in Purgatory.) And because he alone had power only this to do, he committed it to Peter the Apostle principally, Whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, it shallbe loosed also in heaven, etc. He saith upon earth, for he never said, that he was to be absolved which died in his binding. Likewise that this authority given by this text, be it more or less, is to be exercised only upon men living on the earth: you may read, C. 24 q. 2. Quod autem. And that no man can be excommunicated or absolved after his death, it is showed by the words of the Gospel, in which it is said: whatsoever you shall bind etc. he saith: upon the earth, not under the earth. Where I cited out of Cyprian Cont. Demetr. Pur. 140. when men are departed from hence, there is no place of repentance, no effect of satisfaction, Here life is either lost or saved, Here provision is made for everlasting life, by the worshipping of the fruit of faith: Bristol chargeth me with clipping, because I left out the last period, which is neither to nor fro my purpose. Likewise where I said, he exhorteth Demetrianus himself to repentance, which had been a wicked man and a persecutor of Christians, he chargeth me with changing, for I should have said, which presently was. I changed no word of Cyprian, in saying, he had been, and a reasonable man would have understood me, that he presently was such a one, when I said Cyprian exhorteth him to repentance. But what is the answer? This which is expressly written of Infidels in hell, and of baptism, I pretend to be written of the faithful in Purgatory, and of penance after baptism. I answer, Cyprian speaketh generally of all men, & not of Infidels only, & of all men in this world and not of Infidels in hell. Nec quisquam, etc. Neither let any man be staid: either by sins or by years that he should not come to obtain salvation. To him that remaineth still in this world, no repentance is to late. The way is open unto pardon: and to them that seek and understand the truth, the access is easy.  
Finally after he had said, that passage is from death to life, the place by me cited, he addeth, Hanc graiiam, This grace Christ bestoweth, this gift of his mercy he giveth by subduing death with the trophy of his cross, redeeming the believer with the price of his blood, reconciling man to God his father, quickening a mortal man by heavenly regeneration. Him, if it may be, let us all follow, let us be esteemed by his sacrament and sign, he openeth unto us the way of life, he restoreth us to Paradise, he bringeth us to the kingdom heaven: with him we shall always live, etc. These words declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth one mean of salvation, as well for the Gentile to be baptized, as for the penitent Christian by the only mercy of God in Christ obtained in this life, without any satisfaction of pain, for ever after this life: and therefore he saith moreover, That being made the sons of God by Christ, restored by his blood, we shall always rejoice with him. We Christians shall be together with Christ glorious, blessed of God our father, rejoicing of perpetual pleasure, always in the sight of God, and always giving thanks to God. For he can not be but always joyful and glad, which when he was guilrie of death, is made sure of immortality. Thus doth Cyprian promise to Demetrianus, if he did repent, but even immediately before his death, and were baptized, that he should enjoy the same state of felicity, with all faithful Christians, in perpetual joy after death with Christ.  
In like manner he exhorteth them that were fallen in persecution to repent in this world, while confession may be received, and satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is acceptable to God, which he speaketh generally, as if he had said, no satisfaction or remission made by the Priest, availeth to them that are departed.  
To the place of Chrysostom which I cited against himself: Pur. 251. Bristol after he hath removed the question from the cause to the person, answereth that no friend, no just man shall help him, that dieth in mortal sin, either committing evil or doing no good. I say no more but as I said before, Let it be compared with Chrysostom's other saying, the Homily next before 41. in 1. Cor. and with Allens exhortation in the same Chapter. Pur. 242. If thou yet chance, etc. Out of Ambrose although allowing prayer for the dead, I cited in Psalm. 4. Been, etc. The Prophet did well to add on earth, for if he be not cleansed here, he can not be cleansed there. I should have said, clean (saith Bristol:) for though he be not clean from venial sins, he may be cleansed there, as also from the temporal debt of his remitted mortal sins. But he forgetteth the word of the Psalm, out of which Ambrose maketh his note: Vt emundet cum in terra, that he may cleanse him on earth: why was it well added on earth, if he might be cleansed after this life? There is no cleansing but on earth.  
Where Ambrose was alleged by Allen Pur. 104. to prove that every man immediately after his death, doth feel that he must look for in the day of judgement, I said Purgatory 105. I marvel wherefore it is brought in, if it be not to overthrow Purgatory. For if it be true, no man feeleth pain after this life, but he that shall feel it eternally. This last conclusion although Bristol confess, that Saint Ambrose himself sayeth it expressly in other places, yet he asketh how I can infer it of the words of Saint Ambrose In ep. ad Rom. Cap. 5. which I infer not of his words, but of Allens words, citing the place of Ambrose, as though the words were these: And therefore Saint Ambrose saith: that without delay the good poor man was carried to rest, and the wicked rich out of hand suffered torments. THAT EVERY MAN (saith he) MAY FEEL BEFORE THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT, WHAT HE must THAN LOOK FOR. Bristol leaving Allen, as he doth commonly, breechelesse, showeth the words of Ambrose to be otherwise, as they are in deed. Which I will rehearse somewhat more at large then Bristol hath done. Maxima pars mundi etc. The greatest part of the world did not know, that God should be their judge: and very few there were, over whom death did not reign. But they over whom it reigned, after this death, which is called the first, were received of the second death unto pain and destruction to come: but they over whom death reigned not, because they have not sinned in the similitude of the transgression of Adam, were reserved under hope unto the coming of our Saviour in a free place, as it is read of Abraham, that although he was in the lower parts, yet he was dissevered by a large distance, so that there was a great gulf between the just and the sinners: how much more should there be to the godly and just a c●olinge, to the sinner's parching heat, to the ungodly burning heat, that it might not be hidden before the judgement, what every one was worthy of. This that Ambrose speaketh of the difference of the pains of the damned, before Christ, Bristol by his accustomed interlacing would have it seem, as though he spoke of Purgatory: for to sinners he addeth Catholics, to the impious or ungodly, beretikes. But he marketh not the conclusion, that such heat as they felt after their death, they should feel after the judgement. Again, Non latet he translateth might be partly known, as though that which is not hid, is not manifestly and wholly known. That I cited out of Saint Ambrose De bono mortis: That death maketh no man's state worse, but such as it findeth in every one, such it reserveth to the judgement to come: Bristol saith, that Purgatory altereth not the state of the evil to worse, nor promoteth the state of the good to better, but every man's state is according to the merits of his life, nor he that is cleansed in Purgatory hath his merits multiplied or amplified, but venial sins and temporal debts taken away. In deed if the state of a thing were nothing, but that you will allow it to be, it were somewhat that you say: but who will say, that he which is in torments in Purgatory, is in as good state as he that is in pleasure or ease of this life? or that he which is discharged of such debts, as you say must be paid in Purgatory, is not in better state, than he that now dieth and must be cast into the scalding house, for such payment? But that you may understand he speaketh not of the death of the wicked, which must abye for it, as Bristol saith: he addeth Ipsa quiet fovet, it cherisheth with rest: this cannot be of the wicked to whom there is no rest, but to the godly, which all immediately after death enjoy rest, notwithstanding they be not all alike good, for of two sorts only Ambrose speaketh, the wicked in torments after death, because of their wicked life, & the godly in rest. He speaketh therefore of the godly that death maketh not their state worse, as he said immediately before, Quia portus quidan● ect, because death is a certain haven of them which being tossed in the great Sea of this life, desire a harborough of faithful rest.  
To the counterfeit authority of Eusebius Emissenus, that hath served for a patch to piece so many Homilies like the Cukcowes song, I will say no more than I said Pur. 143 The authority of Bernard in this case I always refused, as a late writer not sufficient to testify of the old faith or errors either.   

Whether Purgatory be only for venial sins. 
Bristow●.   
Standing upon Augustine's judgement Enchirid. cap. 
Fulke.  69. and other places, I maintained, that Purgatory could not be by his judgement, for great offences which by penance are made small. Against which Allen cited Augustine De vera & falsa poenitentia: that some sins are mort●l, which by repentance are made venial, etc. which if they be not purged in this life, require punishment a●ter this life, etc. And Bristol noteth them more at large, as though I had not understood them, or not read the book. The truth is, I made none account of the counter●et book, but noted the impudency of Allen, that would cite it against the certain and known judgement of Augustine. Whereas this counterfeit book, if nothing else did bewray it, in the 17. Chapter rehearseth the opinion of Augustine by name, and doth confute it.  
But Bristol passeth impudence itself, while he allegeth for the same with Allen Enchir. Ad laurent. Cap. 71. Where Augustine saith of the lords prayer in them that are regenerate. Delet omnino, etc. That prayer altogether putteth away those small and daily sins. Also it putteth away even those sins, from which the life of the faithful that hath been wickedly led, but by repenting being changed into better, departeth. Here he saith expressly, that by repentance and prayer, great offences are clean wiped away, even as small. But how doth Bristol prove hereof, that mortal sins are become venial? Which also in the next world he admitteth. Cap. 6●. (saith Bristol). But what doth he admit? that small sins may be purged peradventure in the next life. What, B●istowe? have you forgotten what you held even in this Chapter, under the title (whether Saint Augustine doubted of Purgatory Fol. 250.) that he speaketh not of purging sins, but of purging worldly lawful affections, wi●h grief of mind, & c.? But admit he speaketh of purging small sins in that place, by Purgatory fire, as indeed he doth, although before you denied the same: how prove you our present controversy, that mortal sins forgiven, become venial, and may be purged in Purgatory▪ you say Cap. 70. Infanda crimina, etc. The heinous offences, if they be forgiven. Si convenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remitiuntur: He granteth they may be saved by Purgatory fire, after this life. Good Lord, what will you be ashamed to affirm? There is no such thing in that Chapter, no nor in that which goeth before, these words are not. But after he hath declared his doubt of them, that have loved perishing goods, whether they may be saved by purgatory fire after this life: he saith, Non tamen tales de quibus dictum est quòd regnum Dei non possidebunt, nisi convenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remit●●ntur. Yet not such, of whom it is said, that they shall not possess the kingdom of God, except unto them conveniently repenting the same crimes be forgiven. Here although perhaps you may gather, that such persons are not excluded, yet can not you infer, that for their great sins remitted, they should go thither, but for their small sins, such as he spoke of before. What the opinion is of him that made the 41. Homily De Sanctis under the name of Augustine, it forceth not greatly, seeing he doth not expound th●t place 1. Cor 3. as Augustine himself doth in many places: and yet holdeth that not capital, but small sins are purged with that fire.   

8 Of Limbus Patrum. 
Bristol.   
I denied not but Augustine was of opinion that the 
Fulke.  fathers before Christ were in hell, no not in that book Contr. Feliciam. Arrian. But I wished his reason to be marked, wherefore he counted it blasphemous to say, that our saviours soul was committed to prison in he●, because the souls of good men are immediately called to Paradise, much more the soul of Christ, who commended the same into his father's hand, and promised to be with the thief the same day in Paradise. To this reason Bristol answereth nothing.  
In the saying of I renaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 33. cited by Allen, I said it seemeth the name Adam to be taken for a common name of mankind. But Bristol wondereth at my blind ignorance, as not knowing, that Tatianus against whom Irenaeus writeth, denied the salvation of Adam the first man.  
As though it were necessary therefore, that Adam in this place must signify that singular man: whereas it is evident, that rendering a cause why Saint Luke beginning the genealogy at Christ, endeth it in Adam, he disputeth first, of the mystery of our redemption generally, from Christ extending unto all ages: and saith, Necesse fuit etc. It was necessary, that our Lord coming unto the lost sheep, and making a recapitulation of so great a disposition, and seeking his own workmanship, to save even the same man which was made hi● image and similitude, that is Adam filling the times of his condemnation which was for disobedience etc. I see not what great blindness it is here to take Adam for mankind, as well as the lost sheep: but admit he meaneth our first parent, which I denied not: of what skill proceeded it in Allen, to interpret these words of Christ's descending into hell, which is the matter there in question, when they are manifest of Christ's incarnation, to save all mankind both the Fathers and us?  
The other place of Irenaeus Lib. 5. almost in the end, I said to overthrow the Popish fantasy of Limbus, I might have added also of Purgatory, where Irenaeus affirmeth, that Christ after his death, went into such a place, as all his disciples shall rest in, until the time of the general resurrection, which was the place where the dead were before. Bristol replieth, he saith not, that the disciples shall go into the same place that Christ went, but into an invisible place etc. whereto I answer, how is it manifest that they shall go into such a place, but by the example of Christ, who went into the place where the dead were? And how can the text which he citeth, prove it? The disciple is not above the master, if every disciple should not go into the same place, but as you hold, some to a much better, some to a worse, whereas he speaketh of one invisible place, appointed by God for all the disciples of Christ.  
And thus an end of all your caviling upon such places of the Doctors, as were cited by me. Which how rightly I have discharged from your manifold wrangling, that the indifferent teader might more thoroughly perceive, I wish him to compare your cavils with those places of mine, which you quote, where he shall see that you have taken greater pains to pick quarrels at me, than used diligence to defend your Author, whose books you have undertaken to maintain: beside that of every ten reasons that I bring against him, you have not touched one.    

The tenth Chapter.  
That notwithstanding all which Fulke hath said against D. 
Bristol  Allens articles, in his first Book, being of that matter, or also in his other of Purgatory: every one of my 51. demands, (& therefore also every one of my motives, & likewise every one of those articles) standeth still in his force. Every one (I say) and much more all of them, to make any man to be a Catholic, and not a Protestant.  
To Bristow'S motives and demands, I have answered 
Fulk 〈…〉  directly & purposely in a peculiar treatise, that although he dare not join with me in answering of Allen directly, yet he shallbe driven to defend his own brags absolutely, or else forsake his challenge shamefully. The demonstration that he boasteth of in this Chapter is for the most part, nothing else but a quoating of such places, where in his reply he supposeth to have confuted mine answers to Allens articles: unto which reply, seeing I have orderly rejoined in every point, I will not stand to repeat, where I have confirmed every answer, seeing this chapter of Bristol may be a sufficient register to all such Chapters, & parts of Chapters where the same may be found. And for such points of his motives and demands whereunto he complaineth, that in mine answer to Allens articles I have said nothing, I must require both him and his readers, to have recourse to my Book specially written against his said motives, and demands. For in answering Allen, I could not prophecy, what arguments Bristol would bring in those books set forth by him so many years after mine answer to Allen was penned. But where he hath any argument or authority not directly answered before, I will here endeavour to satisfy the same in such plain order as I have observed in all the rest of the book hitherto.  
Omitting therefore the two first demands of Collatio Carthaginensis, and building of the Church, in the third of Going out, he saith that Against our imagined Church in the wilderness, we are expressly warned Math. 24 Behold Christ is in the wilderness, do not go out. This answer as senseless as it is, is borrowed of Stapleton in his demonstration of doctrinal principles, which I have confuted in a brief answer, showing that although we seek not Christ either in the wilderness or in the secret places, no not in the Popish pyx, but in heaven only, yet we are to seek his pilgrim Church, in what corner of the earth soever she be, and seeing the holy Ghost hath expressly a●sirmed that she should be hidden in the wilderness, from the cruelty of the bloody Dragon, what impudent ignorance, or malicious blindness is it in Stapleton and Bristol, to say we are warned by Christ never to seek the Church in the wilderness? as though we were forbidden to see●e her, or else to acknowledge her to be where sometime she should be. In the 4, demand of rising after he would maintain 2 arguments, the first is this. Our first authors 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 authors, and of prayer for the dead, Montanus the heretic, until you can name us a Catholic that held it, which was more ancient than he, and although you would clear yourselves of theft, because you have not stolen that article but received it, yet seeing it came first from a thief, your possession can not be just: and therefore ye must restore it to the heathen, from whence Montanus stole it. Where I brought example of the heretics, called Acephali, and diverse other, Pur. 388. to prove that the first auctor of every heresy can not be named; Bristol saith, that he findeth his name, to have been Severus, & that they were but a piece of Eutyches as the Puritans are of Calvin But when writers doubt, & the common voice gave them their name, because their bead was not known, the conjecture of a name, will not serve the turn. If they had added nothing to Eutyches, they should have been called Eutychians, as for the cavil of Caluine, and the Puritans, deserveth none answer. More like are the friars observants and general franciscans, to those headless heretics, & the Eutychians. But Bristol being driven from the auctor, falleth to the beginning of an heresy, which being showed to have been later than Christ and his Apostles, is indeed an undoubted argument, to reprove an heresy. And the beginning (saith he) is showed by this, that the primitive name of Christians would not serve them, but they must have new names to be called by. By this demonstratine Logic, none shill so aptly be proved heretics, as Monks, Friars, Nuns, etc. who disdaining the primitive name of Christians, have chosen to themselves new names, as Benedictines, franciscans, jesuits, etc. Whereas the old heretics did not willingly choose the names that they were called by, but by like names, reproached the true Catholics: which argueth that the new name, except it be chosen by them ●elues, is no good argument to convince heretics. Bris. asketh, if the Papists do acknowledge any founders of their faith, but the Apostles of Christ? yea verily the Pope & the popish council, which have given you new articles of faith, that the Apostles never taught, but the contrary, as transubstantiation, & communion under one kind, etc. That Te●tul. & other latter writers do father prayer for the dead upon tradition of the Apostles, it is no warrant for us, seeing the doctrine thereof is not found in all the holy canonical scriptures, but is contrary, to the same, & Montanus is found to be the first that since Christ, taught prayer for the dead. That transubstantiation was lately decreed, he answereth it was the name & not the thing, as Homoousion was always believed even before the Nicen Council, which first received that name. A fit comparison: but how can Brist. say, that transubstantiation was always believed? when the common opinion almost of all the schoolmen is, that before the determination of the Laterane council, it was no heresy, to hold impuration or adnihilation of the Elements, and he himself confessed in the last Chapter that perfect transubstantiation was not decreed before the last Tridentine session. The second argument is this: your first authors can be named after the beginning of the Churches rising with their new opinions: Ergo their opnions were heresies, etc. To this argument I answer, denying the antecedent, for we hold no new opinion, but the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, jesus Christ, being the head corner stone. Where I take exceptions to Allens rule. Pur. 413: Bristol expoundeth his meaning, to be of such an opinion as is contrary to the truth, first preached by the Apostles, and upon his exposition not necessary upon Allens words, chargeth me with nugation or triseling, in adding mine exception, which is the same with his exposition. I pray the reader vouchsafe to peruse the place, and see if there be any drop of shamefast blood left in this blundering papist, which blusheth not to scoff at me for triselings when he doth nothing but cavil and trifle himself, and that without all wit, or reason, truth or likelihood.  
In the 5. demand of contradiction of heresies in their first arising, where I had showed, how some few plausible errors of prayer for the dead & to the dead Ar. 39 by little and little prevailed, without any great contradiction mentioned in Histories. Bristol saith, It is a fond part to tell why and how a thing was done, which was never done. For the Scripture Es. 62. and August. Ep. 119. Cap. 19 affirm that there ne should be, ne was any such silence in the true pastors, etc. I answer both the Scripture and the Doctor speak of silence, which may bring present overthrow of the City, or damnation of the Citizens. Otherwise the true pastors in Saint Augustine's time, not only in silence passed, but by speech and writing allowed, the error of communicating of infants and the necessity thereof, as I have showed before. And seeing prayer for the dead and to the dead, by the holy Scriptures, are convinced to be errors, it can be no justifying of them to say, no man preached against them at their first rising. And seeing the Histories of the ancient time are very few and short, it is more boldly affirmed, then sound proved, that no man preached against them. Epiphanius doth not tell who preached against every heresy at the first arising thereof. And even some of Origens' heresies, of which Bristol taketh example, slept almost 200. years in his books, before they were openly contradicted in the days of Hieronyme, Ruffian and Augustine. Touching that I allege of the mystery of iniquity working in the Apostles time. 2. Thess. 2. Bristol chargeth me to say, that the Church of Christ wrought this mystery of iniquity, wherein he doth me open injury: for I know it was Satan which wrought it, but yet in the Church where Antichrist should sit, and not without it. He asketh whether my text say, There was no preaching against it. I answer my text saith, it was a mystery not revealed, and therefore could not at the first be openly preached against. But Antichrist being openly showed, was preached against by the two witnesses, Apoc. 11. although he were not espied in the first mystery of iniquity, yea when he was yet in fashioning he was preached against by Irenaeus, Pollycrates, and others Ar. 36. and in this book. Cap. 9  
The case of Cyprian and the africans, being true pastors and yet contradicting the truth, and other true pastors denying that such as were baptized by heretics were to be rebaptized, I have clearly set down Pur. 413. but that Bristol can do nothing but cavil.  
Allens rule is of the first rising of the persons, whereunto I require to be added that their opinion must also be new, which if Bristow'S blind malice could have seen, he needed not to have painted his margin, with so many quotations, to prove that the true opinion was ancient and perpetual.  
Where I showed Ar. 93. that the Pope in secret, & not by open contradiction, caused a most horrible blasphemous lake, called the Gospel of the holy Ghost, etc. written by the Friars to be privily burned, for shaming their order, which continued. 55. years, without reprehension of the Pope, or any, but such as were accounted heretics, Bristol calling it favourably, but a new scandalous book, asketh what fault it was. Verily such a fault, as proved him to be more zealous of the glory of beggarly friars, then of Christ and his Church, neither can it be shadowed by the example of Augustine, at the first forbearing the name of Pelagius, while there was hope of amendment in him, and he not thoroughly understood his heresy. But contrary wise the Pope favoureth the blasphe●●ous friars and condemneth their reprehenders for heretics.  
Where I said, this was an argument from man's authority negatively, & therefore nothing worth: No man preached against Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, at their first entry: therefore they are true. Bristol saith, it is according to the Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, that All heresies have b●ne preached against at their first entry. Beside that he flitteth from errors to heresies, as though there were no difference between them: those Scriptures, Fathers and Histories, are not yet showed by which it may be apparent, what men and of what names, and in what time did openly preach against all heresies, at their first entry, which is the thing that is urged upon us. In the sixth demand which is of the name of Catholics, where I said he is a foolish Sophister, that reasoneth from names to the things. Bristol saith he knoweth not in what Logic, I have that axiom. He is a great stranger in Aristotel, that knoweth not that a carcase, although he be called a man, yet is not a man in deed: moreover he chargeth me to reason so myself in the seventh demand, where indeed I do only deride the vain kind of reasoning from the name to the thing, when the name is not rightly given, retorting the argument upon the Papists, who of us are called heretics, as we are of them.  
But Saint Augustine reasoneth of the name of the Catholic Church. Aug. in Psa Cont. Part. Donat. Dici●is, etc. You say that you be with me, but you see it is false, I am called Catholic, and you of Donates' part: I answer Saint Augustine doth not by the only name of the Catholic Church, as a sufficient motive, prove the Catholic Church, but by many other weighty reasons proveth that she was justly called so, because the question was between the Donatists and the Church, not only of the Church, but even of the name of Catholic.  
Where I showed Are 6. that the Grecians are called Catholics by as many Nations, as the Papists: Bristol hath nothing to reply, but that the heretic Grecians and Latins, do not mistake the person, when common talk and books call Catholic latins, or Catholic grecians: therefore they be true Catholics. A miserable conclusion upon a false antecedent, for the Grecians by the name of Catholic Grecians, understand enemies to the Pope, and by the name of heretics Papists, either Latins or revolted Grecians.  
That in public edicts, by men of our side, papists are called Catholics, it is more than I know, or think to be true, although edicts penned by papists or neuters, call the papists Catholics, as they call us, of the religion reform, which appellations prove neither the one nor the other.  
Where I compared the papists Ar. 67 glorying in the name of Catholic & Church, to the Infidel ●ewes, criing: The temple of the Lord, when they had made it 〈◊〉 den of thieves: Bristol answereth, That our Lord● both in the Prophet Ier 7. and in the Gospel Math. 21. acknowledgeth it to be his Temple, although they in it were thieves and wicked persons. The place indeed had been the Temple of God, and therefore Christ used his authority as high Priest in purging it of corruptions, but of their making, it was not God's Temple, but a den of thieves, except Bristol will say that a den of thieves may be God's Temple. And although unto the godly, notwithstanding the corruptions, it was still the Temple of God, yet had not the ungodly the Temple of God, nor were in it, as in God's Temple, but as in a thievish den, so are papists in the Catholic Church.  
Where I said, supposing we were not called Catholique●, we should not be in worse case than Christ & his Apostles, who not only had not that name, but were of the jews (who were as rightly called God's people, as the papists are called the Christian world) called heretics and deceivers. Bristol biddeth me bate an ace of that, except I can show by predictions of the Prophets, the reprobation of the Christian world, in these days, as they show the reprobation of the jews in those days. A wretched refuge, as though papists were only named the Christian world, or that the jews were reprobated in the time of Christ's preaching, or the Apostles either, before the extreme obstinate refusing of the Gospel. Or as if it were not sufficient, to show the popish apostasy from the faith by those undoubted notes, which the spirit speaking evidently doth give of them. 1. Tim. 4. Beside this, Bristol derideth me, for requiring the jews to use those names which they never heard of. And is Bristol so well red in the Scriptures, that the name of true Church was never heard of the jews in his opinion, as for the name of Catholic I required it not of them, neither do I think we ought to be tried by the bare name of Catholic, seeing we believe not barely and simply the Catholic, but the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Which Church is not called Catholic, because it should be every where, (for that it never was, nor never shallbe) but because that wheresoever it be in parts, it is one body of Christ. But here Bristol taketh me up for halting, charging me to be the first of all heretics, that say it is called Catholica, because it is una: but he playeth his old parts, for I say it is Catholic, because that being in diverse parts, it is one, so that my reason is not only of unity but of universality of the Church, which is Catholic in all the parts of it, being knit in one, and not of being in every particular place of the world, nor at all times in most places of the world. And with this holy Catholic Church of the whole world, our Church doth and always hath communicated, when it was not so openly nor abundantly spread in so many Nations as it is now. And therefore Augustine in the place by Bristol quoted Coll. 3. Die, etc. reproveth as well the Roman; as the African Donatisme, whereinto Bristol manifestly incurreth, when most impudently he affirmeth, that the old fathers in their Creed, believing one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, meant the Roman Church, as though the unity, holiness, universality, and Apostolic foundation of Christ's Church, were nothing but the Romish Church.  
Where I prove, that the Popish Church is not in every part of the world, and therefore cannot be called Catholic, in that respect: Bristol saith it is jump the argument of Cresconius, and referreth us for the answer to Saint Augustine. Con●. Cresc. Lib. 3. Cap. 63. but the answer is such, as he durst not set it down. For Augustine confesseth the Church is not called Catholic, because it is every 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 held, it to be only in Africa as the Papists only in a piece of Europa. And therefore it is false, that Bristol saith, both the interpretations of Catholic given by Saint Augustine De gen. ad Lit. imperf. Cap. 1. Because she is universally perfect, and because she is spread over all the world, agree to their mother Romish Babylon, for she hath nothing perfect, neither was she ever nor at this day is spread over all the world, no not wh●re Christ is and hath long been named in Grecia, Macedonia, Moscovia, Armenia, Persia, Assyria, A Ethiopia, etc. in most of which places are the Churches founded, even by the Apostles themselves, and yet never subject to the Romish faction. It is also false, that we renounce the latter, for we communicate with the Church of all Nations, that hath communion with Christ, and farther the Catholic Church doth not extend. As for the names of Church, Catholic, baptism, heretic, schismatic, which he saith our Apostasy hath changed into congregation universal, ablution, or washing, chooser, and cutter, it is a most gross & shameless lie, for although we may be heard sometimes perhaps, and not often to interpret the Latin and Greek terms, by English words, yet all that hear us. or read our writings, can testify that we most commonly and usually, yea daily and hourly use the terms of Catholic, Church, and Baptism Heretic, or Schismatize, as often as occasion serveth to speak of those matters. As for the Greekish names of Priest, and Bishop, if they be understood, for such ministers, as Saint Paul meaneth by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we strive not for them. But when priest is taken for a Popish sacrificer, and Bishop for a Baptizer of bells, etc. we like the names no whit better, than the things. Otherwise it is not the ●●unde of words, that troubleth our ears, but the pestilent poison that is hid under such terms, which our heart abhorreth In the 7. demand of heretics, where he chargeth me to affirm, that whosoever of true Christian● were called heretics, without doubt are heretics in deed: and therefore Aerus, iovinianus and Vigilantius, so called and counted by true Christians, were heretics in deed. Of Aerius there is no question, but he was an heretic, although not in that matter Bristol meaneth. The error of jovinian we defend not: but Vigilantius, although baited by Jerome, was never generally condemned for an heretic. Howbeit, that which I spoke but in de●ision, and imitation of the Popish manner of reasoning, Bristol taketh it as though I had plainly affirmed, such a principle, which was far from my purpose Jerome, and Ruffian, were both true Christians, yet either chargeth the other with he resie in their heat. And what will Bristol say of the two general Counsels of Constantinople the 6. & Nicen the 2? Will he not say they consisted of true Christians? Yet both the● do call, account, and accurse. Pope Honorius for an Heretic. Will Bristol conclude, that therefore he proved so in deed? He dare not for his life. Jerome chargeth Pope Liberius with subscription of heresy 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 Jerome, Liberatus, & Syluerius commonly accounted for true Christians, and as for Liberius, & Vigilius, Bristol date not for both his ears say they were heretics.  
Where I said, the Devil stirred up tyrants, Heretics, Popes, Saracenes, and Turks to destroy the Church: Who (saith Bristol) that counteth Popes to be heretics, would so divide? Verily he that counteth Popes to be in an higher degree of impiety, then particular heretics, namely to be authors of Apostasy & Antichristes.  
Where I object against this Popish rule, that the true Christians were of the Arrians called, heretics, Bristol asketh whether they were of the Arrians commonly called Heretics? Yea verily, as commonly as we are of Papists. Bristol saith, if we should in our talk & writing, say heretics simpliciter, as they do, we could not be understanded to speak of them. Yes in deed, as well as they among their own, are understood to speak of us. And what other thing is meant by the name of Papists, but heretics, and traitors, Antichristians, and Apostates, enemies to God their Prince, & their country. In the 8. demand, beside that which is confuted in answer to the 3 motive, he denieth, franciscans, Dominicanes, etc. to be sects, because a sect importeth a division. And i● there no division between secular, and spiritual, Nominal, & real, one sect & another? S. Paul complaineth, that Christ was divided, when one said I hold of Paul, & I of Apollo's, & I of Cephas, & I of Christ. And howsoever you will now extenuate your schoolebrals, & contrary sects, each hath contended against other, as for the truth of Catholic religion, & against heresy, as the Dominicanes, & Franciscans, Scotists & Thomists, that I speak nothing of the Guelphs, & Gibellines, the firebrands of the world, In the 9 demand (of the conversion of Heathen nations) if sufficeth not Bris. the we hold the same Gospel, which is taught in the writings of the Apostles, which converted the first of all Heathen nations, that were converted to Christian faith: except wecan prove that the same nations are still of our religion But he asketh, if we will be tried by Africa, (for example) whose religion we know by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Optatus, etc. Or if we have any better monuments of any nations religion, he biddeth me to name it, and let us try it between us. How often have I named the holy Scriptures, the best and the only true monument, whereby we may try what Gospel the Apostles preached, and into what faith they baptized the nations? And as for those whom you name for Africa, although they testify of some corruptions received and allowed in their time, yet I dare take them for trial of the greatest controversies that are between us, of justification by grace, and not by merit of works, of the Pope's antichristian supremacy, of the lords supper, of worshipping of images, and many other controversies. As for that brabbling of converting of nations by them, or us, it is not worth the while, but a matter of mere contention, which can not be decided, but by trial whether they or we hold the true faith of the Gospel, for into that were all nations converted, that were turned by the true Apostles. As for the conversion of any nation into false Christianity, proveth not the converters to be Apostles. But Bristol bragging of their wonderful conversion of nations of India and Africa, (which no man reporteth, but lying Friars, and shameless Papists) seemeth to deny, that any were converted unto false religion, by any false Apostles or Heretics. And first, where I said, there are people in Aethiopia, which, by circumcision and observation of the law, declare that they were converted by the false apostles: Bristol opposeth the authority of Eusebius, reporting the conversion of Aethiopia to have been of the right stamp, etc. imagining belike that Aethiopia is so small a country, that it were not possible for one piece to be converted into true Christianity, and another part into corrupt. That there are such people as I said, Munster in his Geography of Aethiopia, doth testify. As for the fable of their emperors submission, and the Abbot's approbation of Popery in all points, may serve to play mock holiday among the Papists, they can have no credit among us. As great a mockery it is, that Bristol abuseth the saying of Irenaeus, concerning the Church of Rome in his time, lib. 3. cap. 3. In qua etc. In which always of them that are round about, hath been kept that tradition or delivery of doctrine, which is from the Apostles. But the praise of the Roman Church of that time, is the shame of the Popish synagogue of this time, which hath forsaken that tradition, and embraced new doctrine, never heard of, from the Apostles days, unto the time of Irenaeus.  
Where I say it is manifest, that the nations of the Alanes, Goths, and Vandals, were first converted by the Arrians: Bristol replieth, that in so saying, I declare that I never read the ecclesiastical stories: such is Bristows Logic. It were possible I had read them, and forgotten them. But what could I either read or remember in the places by him quoted? First, Socrates lib. 2. cap. 32. where it is said, that ulphilas Bishop of the Goths assented to an Arrian or neutral confession, given at Constantinople, whereas before that time he had followed the steps of Theophilus, which was Bishop of the Goths, and being present in the Nicene Council, had subscribed thereto, & he also had embraced the faith confirmed at Nice. First of the Alanes, & Vandals hear is no word, nor in any of the places following; of the Goths it is said, that Theophilus sometime their Bishop, was of right faith, and ulphilas also, before his subscription, and consequently a few that were converted to Christianity, before the heresy of Arius. But what saith Socrates of the first nation of the Goths, that was converted, and of the second also, lib. 4. cap. 27. which is the second place quoted? There were two nations of the Goths, the one governed by Phritigernes, the other by Athanarichus: Phritigernes being oppressed by the power of Athanarichus, sought aid of Valens the Arrian Emperor, and obtaining it, put Athanarichus to flight. Quae causa fuit etc. Which was the cause (saith Socrates) that very many of the Barbarians received the Christian faith. For Phritigernes, that he might show himself thankful for his benefit received of the Emperor, began to embrace his religion, and to exhort his people to do the same. And for that cause many Goths which then to please the Emperor's humour, had addicted themselves to the Arrian sect, unto this time cleave fast unto it. At the same time V●phil●s Bishop of the Goths invented the Gothian letters, and as soon as he had turned the holy Scripture into their tongue, he purposed that the barbarous people should learn the holy Oracles of God. But as soon as Vlph●las had taught the Christian religion, not only to them which obeyed Phritigernes, but also to them that were under Athanarichus, the same Athanarichus moving persecution, put to death divers of the Arrian sect. etc.  
The same history rehe●rseth Sozomenus lib. 6. cap. 37. which is the third quotation interposing his opinion. At verò non istam etc. But truly I do not think, that this was the only cause, why the whole nation of the Goths unto this time, is adjoined to the Arrians: but that ulphilas their bishop, although in the beginning he dissented nothing from the Catholic Church: yet afterward in the reign of Constantius, through lack of knowledge, he was present at the Council held at Constantinople, with Eudoxius and Acacius, which were of the number of Bishops that had been in the Nicen Council. And so being become an Arrian, separated the whole nation of Goths from the Catholic faith. This story showeth, that Phritigernes was not the only cause of conversion of the Goths: for ulphilas the Bishop of those few, that were before that time christened, being long before perverted into Arrianisme, was the principal cause of turning both the nations unto Christianisme infected with Arrianisme. But Theodoret, ●aith Bristol, lib. 〈◊〉. ca 37. Who was a Catholic Bishop, of purpose to take from the Arrians that vain brag of theirs, showeth that the Goths were first Catholics, and not as you say, first converted by the Arrians: but only by false informations, & too much trusting of their bishop ulphilas, being an other Balaam lead out of the way. This purpose Bristol dreameth of, for no such appeareth in his words cap. 36. Sed ego operaepretium etc.: But my think I shall do a thing worth the labour, if I shall show to them that know not, how the infection of the Arrian disease came to the Barbarians. And then showeth that by persuasion of Eudoxius. ulphilas which was the Bishop of those Goths, which before were lightened with the beams of divine knowledge, entered into communion with the Arrian Emperor Valens, and so deceived the whole nation. Where Theodoret saith nothing contrary to other histories, which show that Phritigernes first brought the whole nation of the Goths that was under him unto Arrianisme, and after Vlph●las turned the other nation, the was under Athanarichus, unto the same corrupt form of Christianity, saving that he is contrary to Socrates and Sozomenus, which affirm that ulphilas was brought into Arrianisme at the heretical Council of Constantinople, in the days of Constantius which reigned before Valens many years. That I said of them that were converted by the novatians and Donatists, Purg. 337. Bristol understandeth of whole nations, & requireth my histories & authors to prove that I said not. If Bristol will say, that none from Paganism were converted to Christianity by the novatians, Donatists, or other heretics, I will see what I have in store to prove it.  
The conversion of the Moscovites by the Grecians, Bristol asketh whether it were before their schism or after, and concludeth it was in the time of their emulation, and not in time of their schism.  
I read the conversion of the Moscovites, to have been into the Greekish form of Christianity, An. Do. 987. joachimus Cureas in Mieslao primo. about which time, the controversy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, began to arise, but long before, the Greek Church refused subjection to the Church and Pope of Rome, which if you call but an emulation, you overthrow the rock of your own religion, & break off the band of your unity, which you affirm to consist only in subjection to the Romish bishop.  
In the 11. Demand, of Brittany, where I said the Acts of the Apostles is the best monument to show, into what faith as well this Island, as all other nations were converted by the Apostles: Bristol asketh, Whether the Acts of the Apostles were written to show into what faith all nations were converted, that were turned by the Apostles? Yea verily: they were written to show that the Apostles preached the same faith unto the jews and Gentiles, which they received of Christ according to the holy Scriptures: and thereof the b●oke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the practice of the Apostles, according to such instruction as they received of Christ. Secondly he asketh is there so much as any mention of the twelve Apostles, preaching to any nation of the Gentiles? There is mention of the twelve Apostles preaching to the jews, and of their agreement in doctrine to be preached to the Samaritans and Gentiles, although it was neither possible, nor needful, nor convenient, that they should all twelve in person go to every nation. But what faith so ever any one preached to any nation, the same did they all preach without difference in every nation, that they converted. There is not one of the articles of the Creed necessary to salvation, but it is to be proved by the Acts of the Apostles, that they did preach it. But Bristol will tell us an other cause, why that book was written. No sir (saith he) that book was written to show, only the beginning of the Church (according to the prophets) to wit, at jerusalem, & among the jews, and the taking of it from them for their deserts, and giving it to the Gentiles, even from jerusalem the head of the jews, to Rome the head of the Gentiles. If this were the only purpose of the Evangelist, (as Bristol most impudently affirmeth) he should have spared much labour in setting forth the sermons, and sum of the doctrine, which the Apostles preached both to the jews and Gentiles. But let us hear Bristol go forward. And there Saint Luke endeth it, not caring to tell, so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to Saint Paul (in whose person this translation was wrought, and not in S. Peter's for causes too long to be here rendered) Thou must stand before the Emperor. Because his purpose was no more, but to show the new jerusalem of the Christians, and so to lead them to it, to know what are the particulars that the Apostles taught. If this be true, all the testimony and report that he maketh of their doctrine, was beside his purpose: yea, the history of the gospel which he writ of all things, that jesus began to do and teach, was out of this purpose. And he took the wrong way in writing his gospel to Theophilus, to teach him the certainty of those things whereof he had been instructed, as Saint Luke himself had received of the Apostles themselves, whereas according to Bristow'S imaginative purpose, seeing there had been many writings of the gospel already, he should have sent him home to the new jerusalem of the Christians, and so have left him to it, to know what are the particulars the Apostles taught. But where on gods name learn we, that whore of Babylon that sitteth upon the seven hills, Apoc. 17. to be this new jerusalem on earth? when S. Paul. Gal. 4. bringeth all Christians from the earthly jerusalem, unto the heavenly jerusalem which is above, and is the mother of us all: not to an other jerusalem on earth, and that the mother of all abominations of the earth. Apoc. 17. And how falleth it out, that S. Luke having a purpose, so long and certainly continued, and so necessary for the Church, not in one word commendeth to us this new jerusalem, on the seven hills, nor in one word maketh mention of that, which only changeth (if any thing can change hell into heaven) Rome into jerusalem, namely the translation of Peter's chair or his person, or the least hair of his head, or thread of his garment to Rome? But this belike is reserved among the Apocryphal causes; as these are, why the translation was in the person of S. Paul, and not of S. Peter.  
Where I required one of those nations, to whom the Apostles preached purgatory or prayer for the dead, to be named out of the Acts of the Apostles: Bristol answereth, continuing his former speech: And so withal you have one of those nations named; and that no common one, to wit, the Romans, which received of the Apostles not only that article you require, but all the rest which at this time it hath, etc. When this is showed out of the Acts of the Apostles, or any other Canonical scripture, I am answered. Where I require it to be proved, that the same Apostle which first converted Brittany, taught prayers or sacrifice for the dead: Bristol answereth, If you require us to prove it out of the Scripture, considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our lands conversion you declare yourself to be but a prattler. At the least wise you declare, that you cannot prove it out of the scriptures. But we can prove out of the scriptures, every article that we believe, to have been taught by that Apostle or Apostolic man, whosoever first preached the saith of Christ in this land, although our lands conversion be not by name mentioned in scripture. Yet seeing the doctrine of every one of the Apostles was the same that is expressed in the scriptures, we are able to prove, that he preached the same which we believe, considering that we believe all that is written in the holy scriptures. As for the confirmation of Eleutherius, which Bristol saith was an accomplishing of that which was begun by the Apostles & Romans, if he mean of a supply of doctrine, it is false: for Christianity having been in Brittany planted by the Apostles in the time of Tiberius, and continued more than a 100 years before Eleuthe●ius; was perfect Christianity. To pass over that peak of troubles, in which Bristol placeth me, because I do quietly confess, that Augustine brought much superstition into this Island, & yet: not the whole substance of Popery, but the principal & most necessary grounds of Christianity: where I affirmed that in many things the faith & religion of the old Saxons, was contrary to that the Papists now do hold, as by divers monuments of antiquity may be proved, Bristol with a double negative, would have it seem impossible, Because in S. Bedes story, and in all his works▪ etc. we find nothing against the Pope, nor against any one point of his doctrine. What I have found in S. Bedes story, and other monuments of the Saxons religion, I have set forth in confutation of Stapletons' Fortress. As for that printed Saxon Homily; which is against real presence & transubstantiation, which Bristol saith, was so soon & so diligently called in again, it is abroad in the hands of many▪ never called in, that ever I heard of, but hath since the first setting forth of it, been printed three or four times, in Master Fox's book of Acts and Monuments.  
In the tenth and twelfth Demands of Miracles and visions, where I had cited the admonition of the Apostle, 2. Thessalon. 2. that the coming of Antichrist should be in all lying signs and wonders: Bristol asketh me, what Scripture telleth me, that after the revelation of Antichrist, there shall be none but feigned miracles? Whereas I inferred no such thing upon the text, but show even that which he blameth me not to have showed, how to know feigned miracles from unfeigned, namely by the doctrine which they are said to confirm, according to the Scripture. Deut. 13.  
Where I said, that Augustine De unit. eccle. cap. 16. will allow no miracles and visions for sufficient proofs, without the authority of Scriptures: Bristol saith, I do shamefully abuse my reader, for he saith expressly, What so ever such things are done in the Catholic Church, therefore they are to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholic Church. Yea sir, but it followeth that the Church is not showed to be Catholic, because such things are done, but as he saith there and else where, only by the Scriptures. But Bristol will have me allow all the miracles that Saint Augustine speaketh of, because they were done in the Catholic Church. As though Saint Augustine made that the sufficient cause to allow any thing that was done or said to be done, without joining that they were done to confirm the Catholic faith, Cyprians miracles could not justify his error. In the Popish Church, the sects of Dominicanes and franciscans in their dissension, about the Conception of the virgin Marie, boasted both of their miracles, yet Bristol will not I ween allow both their miracles, except he will allow both their opinions, which were contradictory. Again, many things are feigned, even in the Catholic Church by perverse zeal, to confirm truth, as the history of Paul and Tecla, confessed by a Priest of Asia Tert. de bapt.. Neither will Bristol I think defend, that all the miracles contained in the Alcoran of Frances, Vitas patrum, Legend●●●rea, dormi securè, sermons discipuli promptuarium exemplorum, Festival, and lives of so many Saints as are written, be all true, and none feigned, although they all serve to prove Popery. Wherefore it may be, that even some of those miracles that S. Augustine doth report, might of emulation and unordered zeal be feigned by some Catholics, to win credit to the Church, against heretics. That Luther and Caluine whom he affirmeth, not able to heal a lame horse, attempted wonders, it is as impudent a lie, and gross forgery, as that Li●danus telleth, that Luther was begotten of the devil. And yet there be divers horseleeches among the Protestants, that have healed more lame horses then ever S. Loy did, either when he lived, or since he was worshipped of the Papists as an excellent horseleech.  
Passing over 5. Demands, which he doth only name: In the 18. of destroying idolatry, he saith, that to all that he said, I say nothing, but like a cuckoo: You have not destroyed idolatry, but set up idolatry, not weighing (saith Bristol) that I tell him according to the Prophets, that we have thoroughly converted all nations from idolatry, that we have made them forget also the names of their idols. In deed, that which Bristol telleth me, is of great weight, and therefore I am belike to blame, to weigh it no more but as bare words without matter, and wind without reason or authority. Otherwise I think I have proved, that the Papists have converted few nations from Paganism, and them whom they have turned, they have rather changed the idols, then taken away the idolatry, or rather the very names, than the idols themselves, seeing there was never an idol almost among the Gentiles, but they retain the idolatry, under the name of one Saint or other. They had Castor and Pollux, you have Loy and George: they had Februa or Febris, you have Fiacre: that which juno Lucina was to their women, the virgin Marie is to yours. etc.  
In the 19 Demand of Kings and Emperors, Bristol saith, that although I challenge the Kings of the first 600 years, to be of our religion, yet I bring no proof at all, as though the proof of the doctrine of salvation received in that time, which we hold, is no proof at all. But I 〈◊〉 not answered so much, as that Allen allegeth, ●●we Constantinus received the sentence of the priests 〈◊〉 at Nice, as pronounced of God. What need any 〈…〉 were to this? we honour it likewise. But Bristol such, I confess there was prayer for his soul, according 〈◊〉 the error of his time. And he addeth, that there was 〈◊〉 for his soul, with intercession of the Apostles, in 〈…〉 ose honour it was offered at their relics and their ●●mple, and all by procurement of Constantinus himself. 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 memory of the Apostles: Cap. 59 followeth the description of the same Church and his intent, that the memory of Christ's Apostles by that sumptuous building, should be continued always among all nations: Cap. 60. his purpose is showed, that he being buried there, might be made partaker of the prayers, that should be there made in the honour of the Apostles: meaning the prayers made to God, which many moved by devotion of that glorious memory of the Apostles, should make: Cap. 66. is nothing but a description of a magnificent funeral pomp prepared: Cap. 71. are those prayers which the people made for his soul that I spoke of, and beside that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The tomb of the thrice happy soul, beautified with the name of the Apostles, and adjoined to the people of God, and made worthy of the divine ceremonies and mystical liturgy or service, and injoining the communion of holy prayers. But of sacrifice for his soul, with the intercession of the Apostles, in whose honour it was offered, at their relics, there is no word: although by any figure you understand the Emperor's tomb whereof he speaketh, to signify his soul, which is rather a rhetorical exornation, showing how his tomb was honoured, as cap. 67. he showeth that all the princes of the army, and the Senate, worshipped his dead body, even as they did when he was alive: which vain pomp, he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God, to be given to the Emperors. But in effect you can show no more of Constantius favouring of your religion, but in that one error of praying for the dead: to which I oppose his commandment, laid upon Metriades bishop of Rome, to hear the cause of Cecilianus, E●seb. lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Council de lit. Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeal from the bishop of Rome, and other like matters, showing his sovereign authority over the bishop of Rome and other Prelates. I said, that although Theodoret report, that Theodosius the younger, prayed for his parents fowls, yet the story saith not, that he prayed to Saint Chry so stome for them. Bristol opposeth the Tripartite story, and Theodoret in Latin lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter, & 36. where Theodoret in his own words speaking of the tomb of Chrysostom, saith of Theodosius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He setting upon the tomb, both his eyes and forehead, offered a supplication for his parents, desiring pardon for them, that had done injury of ignorance. These words enforce not prayer to Saint Chrysostom, although prayer to the dead, was at that time erroneously practised. That Allen citeth out of Ambrose, of Honorius standing by the holy altars, while the solemnity of his father's funeral was celebrated, maketh little to prove Honorius to have been a Papist, although in that point I deny not (which can not yet of those words be proved) that he might be occupied in prayer for the dead, according to the error of his time. One error can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith, who is known to have been of that religion which Ambrose setteth forth in his writings, contrary to Papistry, in the most, and most necessary points unto salvation. The 40. days mind, which Allen would beg out of that place, to resemble their Popish months mind, I have sufficiently reproved, by showing the continuance of the forty days solemnity, without intermission. That the last day was one of the forty, and kept with singular solemnity (as is usual in such cases) which Bristol opposeth, can not make a just resemblance of the Popish moan thes minds, which are a renovation of a mourning or solemnity intermitted. Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the general desection, to have been of our religion: Bristol in a lurious rage, noteth in the margin, Sceva the impudent heretic, them whom he condemned before. But who is this impudent heretic, that condemned those Christian Emperors before? or where is there any word of their condemnation? Is there no difference between reproving of an error, and condemuing of the person? But let that pass among Bristow'S impudent and malicious slanders. The Kings of the earth (saith he) have not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon, when they humbly adored the Church of Rome, and licked the dust of her feet, as they are commanded by the Prophet. isaiah. 49. 60. etc. This shall be confessed when it is proved, that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christ, and not the strumpet of Babylon, although the Prophet speak not of bodily bowing, kissing, or licking. Where I name Ziska & Procopius, and George king of Bohemia defenders of the Protestant's: Bristol saith, it was an 100 years before the name, & much more the religion of the Protestant's was coined, as though their religion might not be before that name was used to call them by? But that Edward the third was a Wiclevist, who ever heard? saith Bristol. And who ever heard me say or write, that he was a Wiclevist? I said, Ar. 34 that king Edward & other noble men in his time defended Wickleves cause: and for that you may read at large M. Fox's story of Wickleve. Concerning the book of Carolus Magnus, against images, I have answered Saunder & Bristol else where. The book of Berttam is entitled ad Carolum magnum, although Trithemius say, it was unto Charles the king, brother of Lotharius, the antiquity of which inscription, is elder than Trithemius, except he bring better arguments than his bare affirmation. But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fancy, & durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence & transubstantiation, therefore Charles the King or Emperor did hold this opinion. He that will read the book, shall see he doth plainly express his judgement, against the corporal presence, and as for transubstantiation, there was no question thereof in his time.  
In the 21. Demand of Churches, where I say the Papists had won no more, if we could show never a Church, but such as have been builded by Papists, and to Popish uses, than the idolaters against the Apostles, which could show no temples, but builded unto idols: Bristol saith, the challenge were not one, because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion, we renounce Popish religion, but not all their Churches. The cause wh●e the Apostle renounced their temples, was for that many of them were not for the use of Christian religion, although if credit may be given to our country histories, the Pagan's temples were converted to Christian Churches, both by the Brytons & Saxons. But those converters, saith Bristol, 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 souls might be prayed for in them, as that Church of the twelve Apostles builded by Constantine the great, whereof mention is before etc. Of so many Chruches as he builded, only in building that one, he had that erroneous conceit. Where I say, the old Churches were builded only in the honour of God, and the Popish temples in the honour of creatures, Saints, and Angels: Marry wellymet, quod Bristol: They were called Basilicae Martyrum & Apostolorum, the Apostles and the Martyr's Churches, etc. Ergo, They were not builded to the honour of God only, but to the honour of creatures, when the old writers whom I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirm, that a temple belongeth only to God. And Augustine expressly denieth, that they were the temples, but the memories of those Martyrs, whose names they bore, and as foraltars, he utterly denieth them unto creatures.  
Where I said, that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome: Bristol crieth, blessing on jovinian. Why Bristol, Was there never any Bishop of Rome married? Was there no priest married in Jerome and Augustine's time, although jovinian could not persuade any priest which had purposed continency to marry? To that I said of many of the Cathedral Churches in England, builded for preachers and their wives to dwell in, Bristol saith, I have won a whetstone as big as a mountain, but against the authority of the histories, Ranulph. Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens. and other which I cited, Bristol bringeth nothing, but railing in filthy terms, meet for the college of Cardinal's life, & not for the holy estate of matrimony.  
Where I show the differing form of the chancels & altars of the ancient Churches, with cross isles from the latter Popish erections: Bristol maketh me a sudden proctor of theirs, as though a chancel and altar, a cross bar, might not be named but by a Papist. Yea, he maketh me contrary to myself, for saying that Popish chancels, which are at the East end of Churches, are but late additions: and sanctifieth, that we can abide no chancels, no cross isles, no length to the East, etc. of which things we make small account, either to have them, or to be without them. But it is more material, that he saith, Constantinus had tabernaculum crucis, a tabernacle or moucable Church of the cross, whereas we can abide no cross or rood in our Churches, Euseb. in vit. Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56, Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places show, that in his wars he used to have a tent or tabernacle, as a Church, for prayer and ministration of the sacraments: the first place only calleth it tabernaculum crucis, which might be of the form; but of any cross that was in it, there is no mention, and much less of a rood, which is a cross with an image on it. As for the cross which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola, saith was kept in the Church of jerusalem, worshipped by the Bishop and the people, if it were true, yet it proveth not creeping to the cross on Good Friday, as Bristol saith, for there might be worshipping without creeping, or Popish worshipping either. Again, worshipping of that same cross that Christ died on, proveth not creeping to any idol of it. Finally, where he would prove out of Paulinus and Beda, the multitude of altars in one Church, he laboureth in vain. Eusebius whom I cited, is clear both of the unity of the altar in his time, and of the manner of standing, which was not after the popish manner. Of like wisdom it is, that he will not allow me to talk of chalices of wood and glass, because I say their vestments be as good stuff as their chalices, which the old Church knew not. Thereof he chargeth me not 〈◊〉 have-read in Theodoret, lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra etc. Holy cope woven with golden threads, which Consta●tinus gave to the Bishop of jerusalem, that he might wear it, when he did baptize. Yes I have read it, but I spoke of an elder Church than Constantine's time, in which such pomp was not used. And yet that rob is lewdly translated of Bristol a cope. Although neither the Papists in baptism, have always, or ordinarily worn a cope. The rest that he citeth, out of antiquity for gorgeous attire, and golden chalices, partly is false, and partly superfluous. For Ornatus, is by him translated into ornaments. Valens commended Saint Basil, Quòd tanto ornatu támque decenter etc., that with so great comeliness and so decently, he exercised his priestly office. Again, Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 21. showeth that Chrysostom's priests taken by force in ornatu ut erant, in their attire as they were, which was but a white garment, as appeareth by divers places of Chrysostom in Matth. Hom. 85. etc. Likewise he asketh whether there were such need for redeeming captives, building of Churches, or that requies defunctorum might be at the burial of the dead, that chalices were broken and sold, seeing Ambrose alloweth, but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices. As though Ambrose spoke 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 burial of Christians, the rest of the dead is. Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of burial, which is the third cause, Nemo potest indignari etc. No man can be angry, because the spaces are enlarged, for burying of the reliquijs fidel●um, the bodies of the faithful. Yet he asketh, if I be not ashamed, to cite such places of antiquity, seel hate chalices, because they be chalices, and because they be consecrated? Whereas I said nothing against the necessary use of cups in the Communion, but of the superstitious pomp of the Papists in their golden chalices, and idolatrous manner of consecrating them: while they suffer the poor to starve for lack of necessary sustenance, but once again most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say, that the sacred chalice is called there a vessel of our lords blood, and gold in which our lords blood is powered: where he speaketh of breaking the cups, before they be sold, lest they should offensively be abused to wicked purposes. But there, saith he, is not any such word of them, and in the midst of the chapter, where these words are, they are not spoken of the material cup, but of the godly use of them, when they are sold to redeem captives, answering the objection of such things, that be once dedicated to God's service. Ille verus est thesaurus Domini etc. That is a true treasure of the Lord, which worketh that which his blood wrought. Then I acknowledge a vessel of the lords blood, when I see redemption in both, that the cup may redeem from the enemy, them whom the blood hath redeemed from fin.  
And again, Agnosco infusum auro etc. I acknowledge the blood of Christ powered into the gold, not only to have made it red, but also to have imprinted in it the virtue of divine operation, by the gift of redemption. Such gold the holy Martyr Laurence reserved to the Lord, etc.  
But seeking to give the Papists a blow, Bristol saith, I care not though the stroke light upon the Primitive Church, which had vessels of gold, not only in these princely buildings erected by Constantine &c: but also in the crypts or caves of the earth, in time of persecution. How Ambro●e and Acacius used, & thought these golden vessel● best bestowed, I have showed. But in the persecution time, how proveth Bristol they had such plenty of gold and silver? Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet, who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence, and requiring the treasures of the Church, as the cups of gol●e and silver in which they did sacrifice, and set their wax candles. But what answer did Laurence the Deacon return, what chalices or candlesticks did he render, but the poor that were relieved by the aims of the Church and sale of the golden vessels, if they had any, as witnesseth S. Ambrose in the place before cited?  
Where I affirm, the ancient Churches were without images, because the tempse of God, and images can not agree etc. Bristol saith, I may roll in such rhetoric before fools, that receive our absurd principles, to wit, That the idols of the Pagans, were images of the Christians. But thinketh Bristol, that any of our auditors is so foolish, to believe so absurd a principle, as he is malicious in feigning us to affirm such an impossible paradox? I am sure, it never entered into the opinion of any preacher, to imagine, that the idols of the Pagans were the images of Christians. But this we say, that Popish images, although they be not the same that were the images of the Heathen, yet they are as abominable idols as theirs, & the worshipping of them as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshipping of the images of the Gentiles, and for proof of that, neither you, nor Saunder shall ever find me non plus, as you say you make me, by denying that absurd principle, which is of your own fantastical imagination, and not of our ignorant and unlearned affirmation, as you feign it. As touching our livings, we are nothing discouraged by the story of Ambrose de Basilicis tradendis, but that we may enjoy them with a better conscience, than you compare us, with the Arrians, and our most Christian Prince, to the Arrian Empress.  
In the 22. Demand of service of the Church, how vainly he affirmeth the service of the primitive Church, to be the same that the Popish Church now hath, because two errors of prayer for the dead, and to saints, were in the old Church, of three or four hundredth years after Christ, I will not tarry to declare. But where I note out of S. Augustine, affirming that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs: seeing prayer is a sacrifice, that therefore it ought to be offered only to God: and that Martyrs were not called upon in the time of the sacrifice, but only named for remembrance: Bristol to prove that they were called upon, contrary to the express words of Augustine, citeth Augustine, Tract in joan. 84. speaking of the blessed Martyrs: Non sic eos commemoramus etc. We do not so rehearse them, as other that rest in peace, that we also pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us, that we may cleave to their steps. These words prove not, that they did in public service call upon the Martyrs with solemn prayers, but only interpret, what Augustine supposed the meaning of the public liturgy to be, in that place, where the Martyrs were named among other that are in rest, for whom they did pray, as appeareth more plainly, by the other place, which Bristol quoteth De verb. Apost. 17. Perfectio tamen, etc. Yet there is some kind of perfection in this life, unto which the holy Martyrs are come. Therefore the Ecclesiastical discipline hath that which the faithful do know, when the Martyrs are rehearsed in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not made for them; but for the rest of the departed, that are rehearsed, prayer is made. For it is an injury to pray for a Martyr, by whose prayers we ought to be commended. Note also in the former sentence, that they prayed for them that did rest in peace; therefore they prayed not for deliverance out of purgatory, where they are said to be in pain without rest. The other places, which he noteth, of private persons praying to Saints, proveth not, that such prayer was used in the public service of the Church, which although perhaps it were not sincere in all points, yet was it much elder, than the error of invocation of saints. Where I note that no sacrifice was to be offered unto Martyrs: Bristol saith, it is to be understood, of external sacrifice, as though the Christians had any but eucharistical or of prosperities But admitting his distinction of external and internal sacrifice, how are the Gentiles answered by Saint Augustine, that we worship not Saints as Gods, when we offer spiritual sacrifice to them, which is most proper to God, which is a spirit, and challengeth the spiritual worship unto himself? You might as well grant them external temples, as spiritual sacrifice, and much rather. For if they must have spiritual and internal sacrifice, they must have a spiritual and internal temple, wherein and upon which, it must be offered; which is all one, as if you will dispossess the holy Ghost of his temple, and set up an other altar in man's heart, to offer up sacrifice unto Martyrs thereupon. But Bristol, as it were, giving over his former distinction, saith prayer to saints, is no more a sacrifice to saints, than those dishes of meat, which of some Christians were superstitiously brought into the Churches, as Augustine showeth, to be sanctified by the merits of the the Martyrs, de civit. lib. 8. cap 27. But the Prophet saith, A troubled spirit, (which sendeth forth prayers) is a sacrifice unto God, Psal. 51. and therefore ought not to be offered to creatures; and Psal. 140. he desireth, that his prayer may be as incense, & the evening sacrifice, etc.  
Concerning ceremonies, he chargeth me to refuse all, by mine argument of authority of God's word negatively, and yet in other words to allow some. Who so will confer the places, shall easily see his witless and senseless cavilling. I refuse all superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies, but the word of God alloweth such as are necessary for order and decency, not hindering, but furthering edification. The order of service and ministration, which justinus describeth the Church to have used, containeth a sum of all that we use in our liturgy. Bristol saith, it is the sum of the Mass also, and there is water mingled with wine, plain against the Communion book. As for the mingling of water with wine, how proveth he, that it is named as a necessary ceremony used in that time, and not rather to declare, how soberly the Christians used wine in those meetings, which were so maliciously slandered? But if it were a ceremony, what hath it contrary to the communion book, which although it require no more than Christ used, yet it forbiddeth not the addition of water, if any necessary occasion do require it? But I would feign see the mass deciphered out of that description of justine, which Bristol saith, is the very sum of the mass. Unless Fulke be so foolish to think, saith he, that the bishops sermon, the receiving of all present, the carrying of it to them that be absent, the rich men's offering may not to be omitted in any mass, or for any cause. What so ever may be used or omitted at any mass, or for any cause, I am not so wise, that I know, nor so careful that I desire to know. But is Bristol so mad, to make any endued with reason to think, that justinus describeth, that which was seldom or never used among them, rather than that which was uniformly observed in all their meetings?  
But out of the scripture I reason affirmatively rejecting all the beggarly ceremonies of popery, because God is to be worshipped in spirit & truth, and yet in an other place, I admit some furniture: therefore (saith Bristol,) that I have misused this text, with much babbling to little purpose. Mine answer is, that although some external rites, are necessary for order and decency, yet the true and proper worship of God, is only in spirit and verity, and consisteth not in external rites, no not when they are best used.  
Secondly, against popish lessons, responses, versicles, lewd lies and uncertain tales, read and song as God's service: etc. I alleged matthew, 15. In vain do they worship me etc. Here he taxeth mine ignorance in the scripture saying, that the precepts of men are those which be of men and not of God. And are not lewd lies, and uncertain tales such? yea, all your vain distinctions of popish service: for which you cannot show any one commandment of GOD, nor allowance of the Godly Church, but of the synagogue of Satan, which your beggarly Logic craveth in this answer, to be taken for the Catholic Church of Christ. After this he chargeth me, to falsify the Council of Laodicea cap. 59 when I say it decreed, That nothing should be song or read in the Church, but the Canonical books of the holy Scripture. Unto which accusation, I answer, that I gave the sum of the Council, truly and without any falsification. That nothing should be read in the Church beside the Canonical books of the Scripture, which are there named, Bristol confesseth, and the words of the Canon are plain. This is sufficient to overthrow Popish lessons, where of nine, most commonly not one is of the Scripture. But Bristol will make three Counsels of Carthage, ca 47. to expound this Canon of Laodicea, where it is commanded that nothing be read under the name of the divine Scriptures, but only the Canonical Scriptures. If this exposition were allowed, yet Popish service is not discharged; for therein, the Maccabees and other Apocryphal Scriptures, which the Council of Laodicea doth reject, are read as the divine Scriptures. And as for matters to be sung, the Council rejecting Psalms made by unskilful persons, meaneth to admit none but either the Psalms and Hymns of the Scripture, or at least, such as are consonant unto them: and therefore would never have admitted that blasphemous versicle, or what the devil so ever you call it: Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos, Christ, scandere, quò Thomas ascendit. By the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend, Make us, Christ, to climb whither Thomas did ascend. Nor a great number of such, not only unlearned songs, but wicked and heretical ditties, that are contained in your Popish porteous.  
Where I said, the festival days were kept of the primitive Church, not in honour of the Saints, as they are of the Papists, but only for the memory of the Martyrs, etc. to imitation: Bristol opposeth a saying of Augustine, which to imitation addeth consociation to the merits, and aid of their prayers. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. As for fellowship of their worthiness, is the fruit of imitation, the help of their prayers, is a smack of that declining time, which Bristol always obtrudeth to us, as the only primitive Church, which I understand for the first Church of the Apostles, and that which was most ancient next unto them.  
Where I cite out of Augustine, de ver. rel. cap. 55. that Saints and Angels were of Christians in his time honoured, with love, not with service; for imitation, not for religion: First Bristol asketh, whether he doth not expressly here avouch their honouring? Yes verily, and as expressly he denieth that they are to be honoured with service of religion. But servitus with Bristol, is not the Latin of the Greek word Dulia, it is but mine unacquaintance is Saint Augustine's writings. If mine acquaintance in S. Augustine's writings, were as small as his skill is in the Greek language, I might be accounted a great stranger in them. But let us hear what Bristow'S familiarity with Saint Augustine hath found of the signification of Dulia. De civit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 1. Latriam quip nostri ubicunque etc. Where so ever in the holy Scriptures, is put Latria, our interpreters have translated it servitus etc. very well: therefore the old Latin interpreters judged Latria and Doulia to be all one. For even so have they translated Doulia, always by the word servitus. as Exod 6. 13 20. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 5. Heb. 2. Wherefore Saint Augustine not finding a proper Latin word, to express the worship of God, and choosing Latria the Greek word, doth only show how it was his pleasure to use the term, and not what the word doth properly signify. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in signification, as even Suidas doth confess, although he say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a service, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) for wages. And therefore like a learned Grecian, Bristol, saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonomum to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used but for worship of GOD, or superstition, or religion: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a general name for any kind of service due either to GOD or men. But what shall I reason with such a block, as challengeth all authentical service, that ever hath been in any Church to be the Popish service, although it differ from it both in form and matter, even as before he said, that justines' description is the very sum of the Mass.  
Concerning the tongue in which the service is, Bristol saith, it maketh no difference in the service itself: but because I hold that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues, he will consider my grounds thereof. First, the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians, proveth it not, because he speaketh there of a miraculous gift of tongues. A strong reason, I promise you, nay much rather if a special gift of the holy Ghost, must give place to the edifying of the Church, much rather an unknown tongue, superstitiously usurped, must be abolished.  
Secondly he saith, Saint Paul doth not reject the gift, but moderate it, for the variety of certain, much like to some Protestants, that think all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth Pur. 7. It was not meet, that Saint Paul should reject a gift of the holy Ghost, but show the right use of it. But where Bristol noteth me to think all learning to be the tongues, and quoteth the place, he showeth himself to be a shameless liar: for although I exemplify such learning, as is most necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures, by knowledge of tongues and rational sciences: yet it followeth not, that I think all learning; or all learning needful for that purpose, to be knowledge of the tongues and rational sciences, much less to be the only knowledge of the tongues, as this proud Ass ignorant in the tongues, and almost in all good learning, without all forehead, or with an iron or brazen face, doth lewdly bely me. But if any man think (saith Bristol) that one may argue of that Chapter a simili: Let him consider, first, that so, the manner of simple Catholics, who pray to themselves privately in the Latin tongue, which they understand not, is not condemned, but justified. A hard matter, to justify superstitious ignorance, by similitude of the heavenly gifts of God's spirit, which is the spirit of truth and knowledge. Yes, saith Bristol, he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men but to God. Yea sir, but doth he say, he that speaketh in a tongue which he understandeth not himself? Again the Apostle saith, he that speaketh in a tongue, doth edify himself: Verily he that speaketh in a tongue, which he understandeth no more than a Parot, edifieth not himself, nor any other. Again he saith: if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding or mind is unfruitful: which words Bristol hath impudently falsified, saying, For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (or affection) prayeth, though my understanding be without fruit. Where not only he taketh spirit for a blind affection, which is meant of a spiritual gift, but also would bear us in hand, that Saint Paul justified prayer with affection void of understanding, where it followeth immediately, that he will himself, and exhort all other to pray, not only in spirit, or spiritual gift, but also with mind or understanding, which shall be fruitful unto other. But he saith further, as Bristol maketh him to say, If thou bless or give thanks in spirit, thou dost it well: Where neither his words, nor meaning is such, but speaketh of them which use that spiritual gift of tongues, to express godly prayer or thanksgiving, which serve not to edify the congregation, but doth not justify that what so ever a man shall speak in prayer or thanksgiving with affection, is well spoken, although the speaker understand not what he say. For how can he bless or give thanks well, that knoweth not whether he bless or curse, in the words which he uttereth, with never so good affection? Lastly, he citeth out of Saint Paul: If there be no interpreter, let him be silent in the Church, and speak to himself and to God. And hereof Bristol will-conclude, that mother B. is justified to say her avi Mari, Daminus stickum etc. As though he that spoke in such a tongue as no man present could interpret, and he himself that spoke it, did not understand what he spoke: but spoke merely in the air.  
The second thing that Bristol would have to be considered, is that the Church in her public prayers, doth not speak in a tongue, because the Latin tongue is not in England a strange tongue, so as it were if one should say Mass at Rome in the English tongue. And why so I pray thee, Bristol? Because in England here and there one, understandeth the Latin tongue? Verily in Rome there be some also that understand the English tongue. Think you Bristol could have this consideration without his considering cap? and thereupon concludeth, And so the question is not now the same as was between the Apostle and the Corinthians: But whereas the Church would do all things for edification, the question is, whether this be obtained in the public prayers of the whole world, rather by the Latin tongue, that is to say, by the common tongue, or else by the several tongues, that is to say, by the private tongues. Why, how now Bristol? is the Latin tongue the common tongue of the whole world? You that have all learning beside the tongues, will you deny all other tongues to be common, but the Latin? But to let that pass, the Catholics have one answer to this question, drawing all ●o common or unity, with a little help you may by the same cord, draw in the community and unity of Plato and the anabaptists: but in the mean while, your edification is void of instruction. But that is a small matter with you, to drive all men into a common heap of ignorance and superstition, which is your drawing all to common or unity.  
But to come to examples of the primitive Church, he saith I can not deny, but that all nations of the Latin Church, had the service in Latin: I say, all nations that understood the Latin tongue, as their vulgar speech, but not all nations of the West, which understood it not. That most nations understood the Latin tongue, which he calleth an absurd position, he saith I prove it, by the German or French Counsels of Toures, Magunce, and Rheims, by which I rather show the decay of the Latin tongue in those regions. But my proves are other then he is able to answer, and therefore he letteth them pass, cavilling that the Latin tongue was hard unto the people, where I show the decay of it: As also that the French tongue at this day is in some places called the Roman, where I show the continuance of the rustical Roman tongue in France, out of the Council of Turon 3. cap. 17. as though the French tongue at this day, were not much declined from the similitude which it had with the pure Latin tongue, seven or eight hundredth years ago. To the decree of the Council of Laterane cap. 9 which commanded, that Ministers should be provided, which according to the diversity of rites and languages, should celebrate divine service, and minister the sacraments, to people of divers languages, being conversant in one city. Bristol answereth, the Bishops were not commanded to translate the service into English, and other vulgar tongues, but to provide Ministers according to the rites and languages in which the service presently was. Yes sir, they were commanded to provide Ministers to serve them according to the diversity of languages, that were in every city, where were people of divers tongues. But otherwise Bristol asketh me, why it provideth for those cities and dioceses in which were people of divers languages, and not for all in general. I answer the provision is general, according to the diversity of languages in any city or diocese. Last of all, he asketh why such translation was in no place put in execution? But first I must ask him how he proveth that in no place it was put in execution? And although it were not, it declareth the negligence of the Bishops, not the understanding of the Canon.  
In the four and twenty Demand of Priesthood and sacrifice, he chargeth us with apostasy, for translation of the Priesthood, whereof must follow a translation of the law. Which apostasy falleth right upon the Papists, which translated the Priesthood of Christ which he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without succession, unto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood. But let us see what bald reason he bringeth, to prove that we have translated the Priesthood. First we have laboured to change the Apostolical names of Episcopus and Presbyter, into superintendant & elder. So a translation out of Greek into Latin, or English, is a change with him: and such as may not be abidden, for he reproveth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian, an elder.  
Secondly, I help an other argument of theirs, concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchy is no part of Christian ministery: by which I declare, that we have changed the Priesthood of the Primitive Church, which had Popish Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcists, Cantors, Acolytes, Ostiaries, for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named, either in the Greek or Latin computation of Grynaeus. I confess the names are ancient, and the offices in the Primitive Church, were some necessary, some profitable, but I speak of the Popish Hierarchy, in which nothing remaineth but the names. But Bristol thinketh I do not consider, that S. Paul nameth there, the only Ministers of the word or preachers. Yes verily: and therefore I exclude all these Popish orders, which are such every one of them as may be and are given to men, that are no preachers or ministers of the word. As for the order of Christian Deacons, for ministering to the poor, and Elders of government, I know they are not to be sought in that rehearsal. But for those Popish orders that Bristol saith, belong to the ministery of the altar, the Scripture speaketh no one word of them. Yet he saith, I may see the distinction of them, Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders, & 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priests do not labour in the word and doctrine. Concerning the first place, I know not what he meaneth, except he think Paul and Barnabas were not Apostles, before hands were laid on them, and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles. Or else, that those Prophets and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter, had now orders, which how he proveth I marvel, specially seeing other Papists do understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth ministering, for their sacrificing.  
As for the other place is of Elders of government, and not Priests of the Altar. That the ancient writers used the names of Sacerdotes, levitae, Pontifices, it was not because the ministers of the Gospel are a species or kind of them, but abusively, for a certain similitude of the levitical order and Priesthood, with the ministers of the word and sacraments.  
Thirdly he saith, the Apostles, Bishops, and Priests, were made by other Bishops and Priests; ours by Lay men, as of Kings and civil Magistrates, which is an impudent slander.  
Fourthly, we confess their orders to be good enough, because we reorder not them, which is false: for I said, their admission of the Church is a new calling. Bristol saith, that is a new way to give orders, showing himself ignorant, that even in the old Church, such as were ordained by some heretics, were received after they had abjured their heresy, to continue in the degree of the Clergy, as of the novatians, Concil. Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling, O your Divinity, O your Scripture, as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington, not to be a mock Bishop, but his excellent learning and diligent preaching etc. I pass over, as also the great preaching, which now at the last, is in Popish countries, where within these threescore years, was as great silence as in England at the same time.  
Fiftly, arguments need not, where I deny all Priesthood, but the spiritual Priesthood common to all Christians.  
Sixtly, If I will invent a third Priesthood, he saith that the Primitive or Father's Priesthood was according to the order of Melchisedech, and to offer sacrifice in bread and 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 regard not our arguments, they be but objections. At leastwise I pray you answer our objections, or else they willbe arguments to prove you all blasphemous usurpers of Christ's singular priesthood. But that you will do at leisure, & first you will prove your priesthood out of Augustine, Contr. advers. 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 have neither your sacrifice propitiatory, whereof the controversy is, nor your particular priesthood, for he saith: The Church from the Apostles time etc. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise etc. 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 all the Church, and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood? So that S. Augastine naming the order of Melchisedek, alludeth to those places of the scripture, in which all Christians are called a royal priesthood, & Kings and priests 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but never intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ, confirmed to him by oath, Psalm. 110. and which passeth not from him, Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church. If you object, He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them: I answer although the ministration of the sacrament be proper unto them, yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration, is common to the whole Church, as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth. So that although a sacrifice be granted, yet a special priesthood is not proved. But the sacrifice of the cross was both of thanksgiving, & of propitiation, he troweth: and therefore the memorial sacrifice of the altar to be the one, what doth it let to be the other? This argument standing upon Bristow'S trowing, and confounding the members of a division, shall have none other answer for me. The places that I cite out of Ambrose, ad virg. laps. & de virgin. Lib. 1. to prove that he useth the names of sacrifice and propitiation, unproperly, as other of the fathers do, Bristol will not allow as sufficient, saying I might as well so argue, that S. Paul speaketh unproperly, because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a living sacrifice. whereas the Apostle, Heb. 10. saith Christ's body by death to be made a sacrifice. And what offence is it to say S. Paul speaketh unproperly, where he speaketh figuratively? as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristol, there is great difference, but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it, which confoundeth the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, with the eucharistical sacrifice of Christians, as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Cross: the one could not be offered, without death of the sacrifice and sacrificer, the other is offered continually, the sacrificer living.  
As for his rule to know proper and unproper speeches, let him try to teach his pupils: when I am disposed to learn, I will choose a better learned teacher.  
But now he cometh to answer objections. First I said the bringing forth of bread and wine, was no part of Melchisedeks' priesthood, seeing the Apostle comparing him with Christ, in all things in which he was comparable, never teacheth it, as any part of his priesthood. This argument Bristol maketh to be of one place of Scripture negatively, not consideting it is the only place, where such comparison is made, and that it is absurd to think, the Apostle would omit so principal a part of Melchisedeks' and Christ's priesthood. But Bristol will examine the text. First their vulgar translation, beginning at proferens, both gelding the text, & falsely translating At verò Melchisedek rex Salem, proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi) benedixit ei, etc. But truly Melchisedek King of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the highest GOD) blessed him saying. What doth this context help him, which is as much to say as he blessed him because he was a priest? Bristol, fraudulently omitteth the parenthesis, and in translation, changeth the participle into the verb. But in the Hebrew (If we believe Bristol) the pointing declareth, that also the Rabbins themselves take it in the same sort. What a great rabbin is Bristol suddenly grown to be, since his departure out of Oxford? But what pointing should declare this, he showeth not, neither can I guess. The text is: And Melchisedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine: there is the middle of the verse: than it followeth: And he was a Priest, of the high GOD, there is the end: than it followeth, And he blessed him etc. In deed Rabbi Solomon, but not in respect of any pointing saith of the bringing forth of bread and wine, for a true exposition, First that it was usual to do so to men, that were wearied in war: also that thereby he showed, that he was not offended with him for killing of his Children, for he taketh Melchisedek to be Sem, the middle son of Noach: Secondly for a Mideash, or vain exposition, that it was to signify the Minchoth and Nesecuth the meat offerings, and the drink offerings, which his children or posterity, should offer in that place, not that Melchisedek in respect that he was a Priest, did bring forth bread and wine. But all the Fathers do agree in this similitude of Melchisedeches' Priesthood with CHRIST. I know that many do so, but one Apostle is of greater authority than they all, yet none of them all speaketh of a Priesthood, to offer up the natural body of Christ in a propitiatory sacrifice, which is the principal matter in question.  
But if Melchisedek were a Priest, Bristol will ask me, what was his sacrifice, if it were not bread and wine, seeing none other is mentioned?  
For my part, I am not ashamed to be ignorant of that, which the Holy Ghost hath not revealed. Sure I am, if bread and wine had been his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of Christ also: the Apostle would not have omitted it, which compareth much smalller matters in him, with Christ then that.  
Where I say, it is horrible blasphemy, to challenge the Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedek, which is singular to Christ: Psalm. 110. and Heb. 7. Bristol asketh, if the scripture say not, that there is one baptizer which is Christ, and yet all are not blasphemers that are baptisers. I answer, if any take upon him to baptize, with the holy ghost and with fire, he is an horrible blasphemer. But to baptize with water, that is to be ministers of the outward sacrament, in which only Christ baptizeth inwardly, Christ hath called all those ministers of his word and sacraments. Show you the like calling for your blasphemous Priesthood, after the order of Melchisedek, or else your example of baptisers will not discharge you of horrible blasphemy. But you have another docterlike argument, when you have scoffed out my poor doctershippe. Were not all the rest in the old time the ministers of Aaron, but Aaron himself was Priest only in his own time, and after him every one in his time was Priest as well as he, and therefore in that law were many Priests. He asketh the question, as though it were out of question. Were not all. etc. O famous and illuminate doctor, where did your doctors hood learn, that all the high Priests successively, (whereof every one was a figure of Christ as much as Aaron) were ministers of Aaron? For you speak of high Priests, or else what mean you to say, that Aaron himself was priest only in his own time, for all his sons were priests, although he only the high priest in his time. Upon this strong foundation, you build a similitude and dissimilitude. So that the old testament was like to England since the conquest, having successively many Kings, But the new testament is like to England duduring the time of one King: who being but one, yet hath many ministers, as one might say so many ministerial kings. You show learning enough in this similitude and dissimilitude to make you a doctor after the pope's order. But let us under correction of your doctor's hood, examine your comparison. The old Testament was like England since the Conquest, having successively many Kings. Had not every of those kings, many Ministers under them? And every aaronical priest had also many Priests and Levites under him? And was not Christ head of the Church of the jews, in the several times of every the high Priest? Wherefore the old testament is as like to England during the time of one King, as the new in those points, but the difference is this: that the figurative high priests were many, because they could not continue, but by death were always changed: Christ being an everlasting Priest, hath a priesthood that descendeth not by succession: so that although he have many ministers, yet he only hath the everlasting priesthood, which is according to the order of Melchisedek, Heb. 7. As for your term of ministerial kings, how well it agreeth to your shaven crowns, I will not stand here to discuss.  
My third argument, as Bristol calleth it, is this: The Apostle to the hebrews cap. 10. teacheth us, that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sins (and that but once cap. 9) hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified: that our sins are taken away by that sacrifice, and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sins left. To this Bris●owe answereth, that I do not understand, what the Apostle meaneth by those that are sanctified; by their making perfect; by sacrifice for sin. The sanctified are only the new baptised by his judgement, for which he quoteth 1. Cor 6. where the Apostle saith: But now you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, by the name of our Lord jesus, and by the spirit of our God. By which he plainly showeth, that although they were baptised long before, and had committed many sins since their baptism, yet the cleanness of their washing, the holiness of their sanctification, the righteousness of their justification, they retained still, and therefore exhorteth them to keep it to the end. So that while Bristol (as he doth always) chargeth me with ignorance, not knowing what is meant by their making perfect: he incurreth great forgetfulness, even of the Apostles words where he expoundeth, which are not only, he hath made perfect, but, he hath made perfect for ever, them that are sanctified. So that if sanctification were restrained to baptism, which no logic can prove, yet it followeth, that they which are sanctified by Christ's death in baptism, are made perfect not for a moment, as these obstinate blind Papists teach, from which perfection they fall immediately, and must recover it by masses, and as Bristol saith, by penance, etc. But Christ by that one sacrifice but once offered, hath made perfect for ever, all those that are sanctified. That the purpose of the Apostle (in all that Epistle to the Hebrews) was no more but to exhort the standing to perseverance, as Bristol in so many words affirmeth, let him believe, that can think, the greatest part of his disputation, for the abolishing of all ceremonies, and sacrifices of the law, to be idle and beside his purpose. Likewise that if they fall, he telleth them that Christ's death will not work in them an other baptism, but remedy he telleth them none. Verily there is no remedy, for them that make the death of Christ of none effect unto themselves, by an utter and universal fall from CHRIST. But it is an horrible slander of God's spirit, that he telleth no remedy by repentance, from particular faulles and daily offences: when he showeth the perpetual cleansing of our conscience by the blood of Christ, Hebrews, 10. verse, 14. and in the 12. Chapter he hath many and earnest exhortations to repentance, verse, 1. and 12. showing the necessity of God's fatherly correction to bring us to repentance, Verses 5. 6. 7. etc. But I show great ignorance, where I conclude, that if the greatest part be left to the sacrifice of the mass, namely to take away all sins committed since baptism, Christ hath not made them that are sanctified perfect for ever by a sacrifice once offered for all. For Papists divide not remission of a man's sins between baptism and the mass. No: but you ascribe the whole in such sort to either of both, that you divide the power of making perfect for ever, from the only once offered sacrifice of Christ. But you think it is highly for the honour of that one high Priest to have many ministers, and many ministries, as it were conduits to derive his purchase, & his redemption to his people. In deed, if he had not one spirit that were of power to apply the grace of his redemption unto all his elect, he had need of many conduits, such as you speak of, for which purpose he useth not the ministery of man, but the virtue of the Holy Ghost. The ministery of man is such as man can execute, that is by the word, audible and visible, to speak to the ears and eyes of men, and being ●●i●red up by the holy spirit, to commend the whole effect of his word to the grace of God. But you think to avoid exclamation, if you ascribe nothing to any man, nor any thing, but from that Priest, and from that sacrifice: as though it were lawful for you to take any thing from the Priest and sacrifice, and bestow it upon any man or thing, without commission: yea, against commandment, and against the excellency of perfection of that singular Priest and singular sacrifice, which being once offered need, no more to be repeated.  
The scriptures thus examined, he cometh to the doctors: And first to Augustine, or rather Fulgentius, de fide ad Petrum. cap. 19 cited by me Pur. 316. & 292. to prove that the old doctors, using the name of sacrifice, meant not the popish sacrifice propitiatory of the natural body and blood of of Christ, because he calleth it Sacrificium panis & vini, the sacrifice of bread and wine. Bristol replieth, that he also calleth it the the sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ, wherein as it is cited by him, so is it answered by me, cap. 6. of this book. Secondly where he saith, In this sacrifice is thanksgiving & commemoration etc. Bristol replieth, that he saith also that in this sacrifice is evidently showed, what is given for us, & he is announced already killed. But because this is nothing to the purpose, he compareth it to the martyrdoms of Peter & Paul commemorated upon their feast at Rome evidently showed and announced by their very bodies and heads there seen and visited. A new way to understand old doctors, by practice of Idolatrous juggling and feigning of relics. If these Apostles by their bodies be whole at Rome, so many Churches of Peter and Paul as have presently, or have had in times past, relics of their bones, were greatly deceived. For notwithstanding that Petres whole head is at Rome, his neither jaw, with his beard is at poitiers, and many of both their bones at Triers, Saint Paul's shoulder at Argentina: yea a piece of Saint Peter's brain was at Geneva, where it was tried to be a good pumice stone.  
The second doctor is, August. de civi. dei, lib. 22. cap. 10. saying, the martyrs are that body, which is offered in sacrifice, whereof I conclude, that it is not the natural body of Christ, but his mystical body, which is offered in a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Bristol answereth, that the mystical body is offered in the offering of the natu●ll body. But Augustine never saith, that the natural body of Christ is offered, but expressing what body is offered, showeth that the mystical body is offered. Nevertheless Bristol compareth it to the oblation of Christ's natural body, in offering whereof for his Church, he offered his Church to God with it. But how proveth he that Christ offered his Church to God for a sacrifice? The sacrifice of himself was propitiatory for the sins of his Church, which before he had purged by his sacrifice, he could not offer as a clean and acceptable sacrifice unto God.  
The third doctor is, Tertullian, which saith, that prayer is the greatest sacrifice that God hath commanded. Bristol saith, That in the name of that prayer, he comprehendeth all that is said and done in the mass, which to this day the priest therefore beginneth saying unto us after the gospel, Dominus vobiscum, oremus, let us pray, & immediately goeth to the bread and wine etc. You may think I jest: they be the very, words of Bristol and his only answer. Yea, but there be reasons of this saying: Because that pure sacrifice is made & celebrated with prayer, as Hierom saith, by the priests prayers. What are then the words of consecration? And because even the old house of those levitical blood sacrifices also, was Domus orationis, the house of prayer: Therefore the mass is nothing but a prayer. So is Tertullian answered. Who would not wonder at this clearkely answer? For I think no man can understand of what reason it holdeth.  
The last doctor is Irenaeus saying of the sacrifice of the Church, Libr. 4. cap. 34. The conscience of him that doth offer being pure, doth sanctify the sacrifice, and causeth GOD to accept it as coming from a friend. The sacrifices do not sanctify a man, for GOD hath no need of sacrifice. etc. This cannot be verified of the natural body of Christ. Bristol answereth, they say the same. Yea do, Bristol? Is the sacrifice you offer, the body of Christ? Yea? doth the conscience of the offerer, sanctify the body of Christ? Out upon thee filthy blasphemous dog, if thou dare affirm it. But Bristol asketh Weather any heretic canpleade by their verdict, that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread and wine? As though that were the question. Yea or also the body itself and blood of Christ, so as all Priests do in their Caluinicall communion, no less than we do in the mass? What news is this? do all Priests in the Caluinicall communion, offer the body and blood of Christ as much as you papists do in your mass? I think even the same: for none that communicate with Caluine, do at all offer Christ's natural body and blood, and no more do you, although arrogantly and blasphemously you presume to do it.  
In the 25. demand of Monks, where I say the old Monks were nothing but Colleges of students: Bristol saith, in overthtowing of Popish Abbeys, in which was nothing almost but ignorance and filthmes, and Idolatry, we have spoiled the Church of God, of great utility. But he saith further, they were votaries, and so they be not in colleges of students: their vows were not such that could make them other then students, they vowed to serve God uprightly, and his Church, when they were called, and they in Colleges which having once promised the same, forsake this holy purpose, have small commendation among students. I know in time superstition prevailed, and that which first was free, at last became co-acted: and that which was of conveencie, was thought of necessity, even as true religion declined, and in the Romish Church at length degenerated into Idolatry and superstition.  
In the 27. demand of Counsels, where I prove that Counsels may err. First by the prayer usually said after the end of every general Council: Bristol saith, the prayer is not in respect, for any false decrees or beleeving of their whole bodies, but by reason of certain ignorances and frailties of their members: when in the prayer, they expressly declare their fear, lest ignorance hath driven them into error, which can be understood of none other common errors of this life, but of their error in decrees, seeing the prayer is appropriate unto the Council. And that the words going before, & after do manifestly declare. Te in nostris principiis etc. Thee in our beginnings we require an assister, thee also in this end of our judgements or decrees, we desire to be present a pardoner for our faults, that is, that thou wouldst spare our ignorance and pardon our error: that to our perfect desires, thou wouldst grant a perfect efficacy of work. And because our conscience accusing us, we do faint for fear, lest either ignorance hath drawn us into error, or rashness of will perhaps hath driven us to decline from justice; therefore we desire thee, & we pray thee, that if we have drawn unto us, any offence in the celebrity of this Council, thou wouldst vouchsafe to pardon it, and to make it remissible. Who would pray thus, in the name of the whole Council, which he thought could not possibly fall into any error.  
That I allege out of Augustine, de baptismo contra Donat. libr. 2. cap. 3. That general councils are and may be reform, the later by the former: Bristol understandeth of councils not confirmed by the Pope, which may be reform even by the see Apostolic alone. That was a point more then S. Augustine saw. But how can they be called Plenaria concilia full and whole councils, where lacketh any necessary confirmation? This is a shameless eluding of the Doctors sayings. For first Augustine includeth all catholic Bishops, in possibility of erring in doctrine, not excepting the Bishop of Rome, then provincial, & last of all general councils: only the scripture cannot be amended, as that which hath no error in it.  
Where I said, the councils are received, because they decreed truly according to the word of God, and not the truth received, because it was decreed in councils: Bristol saith, I might as well say, the scriptures are received, because they are written truly: and not the truth received because it is written in the scriptures. But I say the comparison is not like: For truth is not so necessarily bound unto general councils, as it is to the holy scriptures; and therefore both the scriptures are received because they are written truly, and the truth is received because it is known by the scriptures. It followeth not so of councils: that what soever they have decreed is truth, although the Bishop of Rome have confirmed them. Leo Bishop of Rome confirmed the 6. of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius his predecessor for an heretic, whom you hold cannot err in doctrine, which is an argument sufficient, to strangle any papist in either of these two blasphemous assertions: The pope cannot err: The general Council confirmed by the Pope, cannot err.  
In the 28. demand, of the See Apostolic, where I bring the example of Victor Bishop of Rome, withstood by Irenaeus and Polycrates, when he went about to usurp authority over other Churches in excommunicating all the Churches in Asia, and yet Irenaeus and Polycrates with other so reproving the Bishop of Rome, were not heretics: Bristol babbling about the cause of Victor's displeasure, which is no matter in question, saith he usurped no authority, nor was so charged, but that his censure did seem to harp to S. Irenaeus, as if the Pope would now excommunicate all them that would not receive the Council of Trent, it would seem likewise to many, who confess he hath authority over al. But none of these Bishops, that withstood Victor, confessed, that he had authority over them, or that he could not err. But contrariwise Polycrates chargeth him with usurpation, where he saith he will not be troubled with his terrifying censure, seeing he followeth (as he thought) the scripture and ancient traditions of the Apostles. Likewise Eusebius saith, that Victor was sharply reproved of many, and namely of Irenaeus in the behalf of all the brethren of France, whom he governed. Yea, he saith expressly, that Victor with his censure was countermanded, by many Bishops: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They did countermand him, or gave him contrary commandment, to set his mind on things pertaining to peace and unity, and love of his neighbour. Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor showing, that Polycarpus could not be persuaded by Anicetus' Bishop of Rome in some small things, wherein they differed, declared, that it was not then of Polycarpus or himself otherwise thought, but that the Bishop of Rome might err.  
The other example, I brought, was of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, misliked by Dionysius: Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5 etc. & sharply reproved by Cyprian, accusing him of presumption and contumacy, Epist. ad Pomp. because he threatened excommunication to Hilenus and Firmilianus, and almost all the Churches of Asia, thinking that such as were baptised by heretics, should be baptised again. Also Cyprian in his Epist. ad Quirinum, saying that Peter himself was not so arrogant, nor so presumptuous, that he would say, he held the primacy, and that other men should obey him, as his inferiors: Bristol saith none of these denied the primacy of Peter. I say they all denied the primacy of authority, although Cyprian in the same place saith: For neither Peter, whom our lord chose first (which argueth no primacy but of order) upon whom he builded his Church, when Paul did afterward dissent from him, about circumcision, did boast himself or take upon him any thing insolently or arrogantly, that he should say, he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed of new scholars and aftercomers. Here you see it had been in Cyprians judgement, a point of insolency and arrogancy in Peter, if he had challenged the primacy of authority, and certainty of truth against all men. But Bristol saith, when there was no remedy, but they must yield or be Schismatics, because Stephanus would no longer tolerate them, they did like Catholic men, for all their Counsels, conform their new practice to the old custom, and quoteth August. de bapt. count Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. & 25. where there is no such matter, also he referreth us to his fift Demand, where he citeth Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. but neither is it there testified. Only cap. 6. Dionysius changeth his judgement, being admonished in a vision, and that he had learned that not now only, but of old time, both in Aphrica and other places, the truth was received, etc. but of any constraint for fear of being Schismatics, if they dissented from the bishop of Rome, there is no word.  
The place of Jerome ad Euagrium, which I cited Pur. 374. defending a custom of the whole Church, against a custom of the Church of Rome, Bristol saith, doth not prove a Church, a rule of truth, and Christianity, without the bishop and Church of Rome, because Jerome saith, as also there I cite: Nec altera etc. we must not think, that there is one Church of the city of Rome, and an other of all the world, etc. By which words, he showeth, that the Church of Rome, if she will be a member of the Catholic Church, must conform herself to the Church of all the world, and not the Church of all the world conform herself to the Church of Rome.  
Where I say, we believe the Catholic Church, hath no chief governor on earth but Christ, unto whom all power is given in heaven and earth: Bristol objecteth: suppose, that one Christian King or Emperor should reign sometime, as far as the Church reacheth. To this impossible supposition, I answer, that one King should have no more authority, than every King hath now. But Bristol objecteth, that Kings and Queens be no more named among S. Paul's officers, etc. Ephes. 4. & 1. Cor. 12. and therefore as a Puritan belike, I would pull them down. In the motive of Apes, he discharged me from being a Puritan, by his censure; but now he burdeneth me to be a Puritan so far, that I should also be a traitor, as he and all his fellows are. To his wise objection I answer, that as Kings and Queens are not named among Saint Paul's officers, so they are no Ecclesiastical, but civil Magistrates, and the Church may be without them, as it was many hundredth years. Yet when Kings and Queens are Christians, they have chief authority over persons and in causes Ecclesiastical, as far as the godly Kings of Israel and juda had, David, Solomon, jehosophat, Ezechias, josias, etc.  
But Christ professing that all power is given him, Matthew 28. signifieth that with good authority, he might commit what authority he would, and therefore biddeth all his Apostles go, teach, and baptize● and to one of them singularly, feed my lambs and my sheep. No marvel, though my ignorance in the scriptures be often reproved, when such learned conclusions come from Bristol. Christ said to one, feed my lambs and sheep, therefore he said it singularly, and he hath universal charge, and all his successors to. But for the Pope's supremacy, the Apostle saith expressly, 1. Cor. 12. the head (under Christ) can not say to the feet, you are not necessary to me. But who taught you to foist in your own gloss, under Christ? when the Apostle speaketh of the members of a natural body; whereunto every several congregation and the whole church also is like. If you seek the head of every several congregation, you must look to the chief governors thereof, but if you seek the head of the whole Church, the scripture teacheth but one, which is Christ, for one head under another, in one whole body is monstrous. But you think perhaps, Christ as he is head of his Church, may say to the feet, he hath no need of them, and therefore it must be understood of an head under Christ, but than you must remember, that although Christ be most perfect in himself, yet as he vouchsafeth to take upon him this office to be head of the Church, he is not perfect without all his members, which is the singular comfort of God's children, Ephe. 1. ver. last. But Saint Paul, Ephe. 4. as Bristol saith, under the name of the Apostles includeth the successors of the Apostle S. Peter, whose see for that cause is called the Apostolic see in singular manner, and their decrees and acts esteemed of Apostolic authority in all antiquity. This cause is a shameless and senseless lie, for no antiquity, for 600. years after Christ so esteemed the see, or the decrees thereof. Again., what reason is it, that Peter's successors should be included, more than the successors of the other Apostles, seeing this sovereignty of Peter, is not grounded upon his Apostleship, but upon his Bishoplike office, as Saunder maintaineth? As for the principality of Apostleship, & principality of the Apostles chair, which he quoteth out of August. de bapt. Cont. Don. li. 2. ca 1. & epi. 162. have often been showed to be unsufficient, to make every one of Peter's successors equal with Peter in authority, or Peter himself superior to the rest of the Apostles. And consequently there is no cause to think, that calamity of the Greeks to be fallen upon them for departing from that see.  
In the 29. Demand of Traditions, where I charge Papists out of Irenaeus lib. 3. 2. to be like to the Valentinians, which accused the scriptures of imperfection, saying, that they are ambiguous, and that the truth can not be found in them, by such as knew not the tradition, which was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, etc. Bristol answereth, that S. Irenee himself, as all Catholics, will have both scripture and tradition. Yea sir, but what tradition? any truth of doctrine, conserved by tradition, which is not contained in the holy scriptures? nothing less. But appealeth to the testimony of the Church's tradition, for confirmation of that which is taught in the scriptures. Hunc patrem etc. This father of our Lord jesus Christ to be preached of the Churches, they that will, may learn out of the scripture itself, and understand the Apostolic tradition of the Church, seeing the Epistle is ancienter than they which now teach falsely etc. So that what so ever the Apostles delivered, is contained in their writings, and it is still an heretical assertion to say, that all true doctrine is not delivered by writing, but some by word of mouth.  
In the 34. Demand of Authority, where I affirm, the order of the Apostles school, is first to hear the word of God preached, and then to believe, Rom. 10. reproving Allen which commended his friend, that he first believed, and afterward sought to understand: Bristol objecteth the authority of Augustine, lib Retr. 1. cap. 14. where he showeth the cause, why he did write his book de utilitate credendi to have been, for that the Manichees derided the discipline of the Catholic faith, that men were commanded to believe not taught, by most certain reason, what was true, whose slander Augustine confuteth in that book, and not defendeth Bristow'S preposterous order. As for examples of believing Christ and his Apostles, without requiring a reason of their doctrine; how vain it is, I leave to children to laugh at, seeing I speak not of reason, but of the word of God preached, which must needs go before faith: Neither doth Augustine mean any otherwise in his book de util. cred. cap. 13. where he saith: It is rightly appointed by the majesty of the Catholic discipline, that faith before all things is persuaded to them which come to religion. But how should faith be persuaded, but by the preaching of the word of God, without curious inquisition, according to the reason of man?  
Where I say, that Protestants will be ruled by their superiors, so far as their superiors are ruled by the word of God: Bristol derideth their authority, who by our own confession may serve from the truth of God's word: as though the Popish superiors might not, or their supreme head, although beside so many blasphemous errors, as he holdeth, whereof the controversy is with the Papists, it have not been oft proved, that divers Popes have been condemned, even by general Counsels for heretics. Where I said the Greek Church will be ruled by the Patriake of Constantinople, and the oriental Churches by their patriarchs and Bishops. Bristol saith, if I knew the story of the Florentine Council, wherein the patriarchs agreed with the Catholics Church in all things, and yet could not reduce their countries from schism, I would not so say. But I knew that story before Bristol knew whether he would become a professed Papist or no. This consent is a forged paper, found in the hand of joseph the Patriarch, who died suddenly: but in no act of that Council any such submission or agreement in all things, appeareth, but the contrary.  
Where I said, that to believe the Catholic Church, is not to believe all and every thing which the Catholic Church doth maintain: Bristol would have me suppose, the Apostles had said, Credo. S. Romanam ecclesiam, and then asketh, how I would have construed it. Verily even as I construe Credo ecclesiam Catholicam. And so would I construe Credo Sanctas scripturas Canonicas etc. But if the Apostles would have taught us, to give credit to the Church of Rome in all things, they would have taught us to say, Credo Romanae ecclesiae. And Credo scripturis Canonicis, duodecim Apostolis, quatuor Euangelistis, etc. I give credit to the holy scriptures, to the twelve Apostles, and to the four Evangelists. For Credo with an Accusative case, to signify I give credit, how so ever you deride my grammatication, will not be admitted in the kingdom of Grammarians, except his holiness will do as much for that term, as he is reported to have done once for fiatur.  
In the 35. Demand of Unity, where I said, the Church may be called the house of peace, because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest articles of faith: Bristol saith, by this reason, many old heresies were with in the house of peace, because any one article be it of the chiefest or of the meanest, may break peace, as that of quartadecimani, who disagreed only in the day of Easter but that and such like disagrements in opinion, might be in the house of peace, as Irenaeus testifieth, if obstinate contempt of general order did not make a schism, and of a schism an heresy, as in the Donatists. Otherwise difference in a ceremony (as I said) maketh not division of faith: Bristol saith, yes, if they hold their ceremony necessary. But then they hold it not as a ceremony, or the Church's ceremony unlawful. But that maketh not division. Polycarpus thought his ceremony to be the right ceremony, against Anicetus, yet he was not divided from him, for he considered the error in a ceremony not to be of such importance, that it ought to break the unity of the Church. And therefore he refused not to communicate with Anicetus, nor Anicetus with him. No more do they among us, that differ in opinion of ceremonies, except some few schismatical heads, that are condemned of all men for their contention and stubborness.  
The difference of opinions between the Popish Divines and canonists, Bristol saith are such, as may be among Christians, as Augustine testifieth, Cont. jul. lib 1. cap. 2. de bapt. Cont. Don. lib. 1. cap. 18. until a general Council allow some part for clear and pure, but we will not allow the authority of any general Council, if Bristol may be believed: If we might have a Christian general Council for such matters, as are in controversy among us, I doubt not but we should agree, better than the Papists which boast so much of unity. As for the contention of the Popes and Counsels superiority, remaineth still among you, notwithstanding the Florentine Council, which you say most impudently, that I confess to have resolved the matter, when an other Council, 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 primitive Church, which commendeth the scripture unto us, doth not condemn Luther or his doctrine for heresy: Bristol saith, it doth in Aerius, jovinian, Vigilantius, etc. as though there were no primitive Church before these men, which commended the scripture unto us, and yet knew neither prayer for for the dead, nor superstition of relics, or any thing that Luther held with those men.  
Where I tax the blindness of the Popish Church, not discerning the scriptures Canonical, from Apocryphal: Bristol bringeth in a saying of Augustine, showing that it is of necessity, for him to believe the Acts of the Apostles, if he believe the Gospel: because the Catholic authority commendeth both the scriptures alike unto him. But I have showed, that the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc. are not commended to us by the Catholic or universal authority of the Church. After other contentious points stoutly affirmed or denied, without proof, he cometh to charge me with a substantial lie, because I say our Church which is the only true Catholic Church, hath always had right and possion of the word of God, as appeareth by this, that our Church believeth nothing but that she learneth in them. If this be not a notable plea, Bristol reporteth him to our Lawyers. But I report me to all Logicians, whether it be not a good argument, by proving us to be the true Church, to claim continual right and possession of the scriptures, as for the novelty of Luther, & our congregation, is a weak plea to dispossess us of the Church, when the antiquity of our faith and religion, proveth us to be of the oldest Church, and therefore the only true Church.  
Where Allen made his offer, that if I could show any Church, that hath safely kept the scriptures, saving the Popish Church, he would recant: I show him the Greek and Eastern Churches, which are not Popish, whereupon he is bound by his offer to recant: yet Bristol without all shame saith: Every article of D. Allens is not to prove absolutely, that we be the Church; but some only that you be not the Church. True it is, that neither every one nor any of them all, are sufficient to prove, that you are the Church and not we. But that Allen meant they were sufficient, it is manifest by that he promiseth to recant, if any of them can be proved to agree to any other, than to the Popish Church.  
In the eight and thirty Demand of old Heresies, where I showed that many of the Popish ceremonies, were first instituted by heretics, answering directly to Allens challenge, that offered to recant if any man could prove, that any Church but theirs had instituted all their ceremonies: Bristol saith they are such matters, as agree none otherwise to them then to those whom I dare not condemn etc. Which if it were so, yet doth it not show but that I have answered Allens challenge, and therefore do, according to his promise, claim his recantation.  
Of the Messalians or Martyrians I said, they learned first to shave their beards, and let their locks grow long: Bristol out of Epiphanius saith, they did let their hair grow long like women The Popish Priests do not so, but round them. Yet can he not prove out of Epiphanius, that the Messalians did not keep their hair in order by rounding or otherwise. Further he saith, some Protestants do so. I answer, none of ceremony doth so. Thirdly, Priests in Italy and Spain do poll their heads and keep their beards. I answer, they keep the text of the decree, and you the gloss, which saith, statuimus, id est abrogamus etc. We decree, that is we abrogate that clerk neither wear long hair, nor shave their beards. Last of all he saith, I have no great matters to charge them with, when I lay their hairs to their charge. My reply is, that my charge goeth no further than Allens challenge, which urgeth me to show any other to have first instituted any one ceremony in Popery, but the Pope's only Catholic Church. And so I say to the superstitious masking garments, instituted by the Pharisees, although the ancient Church about four or five hundredth years after Christ, received such robes in use.  
Also the daily use of Popish holy water, to put men in mind of baptism, had an elder institution of the Hemerobaptistae that were baptised or washed every day. Here Bristol with a very stolen jest, acknowledgeth their fault, and layeth it upon Saint Paul, who hath deceived them, Rom. 6. where baptism is in deed remembered, but holy water I trow is not there. O, than it is 1. Tim 4. where Saint Paul was to blame (saith Bristol) to tell us, that the creatures of God are sanctified by the word of God and by prayer. Wonderful Divinity, that can bring Popish holy water to so holy a beginning! No marvel if we be blind, which think the Apostle speaketh there of the lawful use of meats (forbidden by the Pope) and of all other of God's creatures being sanctified by the word of God, which give us the use so by prayer, that we may use them well. But specially saith Bristol, he was to blame for saying. The holy Ghost doth help our weakness, praying for us with groans unspeakable, how so ever blind heretics think he will do nothing by water for prayer. In deed when the scriptures be so plain for holy water, it is wonder that any be so blind they can see it.  
Of the Ossenes I said, they took their hallowing of water, salt, oil, bread, etc. and use to swear by them. Bristol asketh if I be an Anabaptist, that will condemn all swearing or swearing by creatures. I answer, I will not condemn all swearing, but this customable swearing of Papists, by this bread, by this salt, etc. and as for swearing by creatures, I am of the same judgement that our Saviour Christ is, Matth. 5. 34. But Papists swear not by them as the Ossenes did, what then? the controversy is not therein, but of their resemblance with the Ossenes in some part.  
Elxai the father of the Ossenes taught his scholars a prayer in a strange tongue, whose interpretation they might not seek, whom the Papists follow in teaching the people to pray in a tongue unknown, and will not, (if they may choose) let them know the interpretation. Bristol answereth, that Epiphanius saith, his prayer was nothing at all when it was interpreted. Is it like Epiphanius would say so? How could it be interpreted, if it had no signification? Epiphanius in deed showeth it was a vain thing, whereof he made so great a mystery, and your ignorant people of the great mysteries of the lords prayer, the Salutation and the creed, make vain and ridiculous matters while they can scarce pronounce their words together truly.  
The Marcosians in baptism used for greater admiration certain Hebrew words; so do the papists: Bristol asketh, why S. Mark in his greek writing, useth that word Eppheta? I answer, more lively to express the miracle of Christ: yet doth he it not without interpretation. Likewise Saint john, in his Apocalypse useth Amen and Alleluia, words, whose signification was as commonly known to all Christians, as their own mother language. What is this to justify the use of that word in baptism, which neither Mark nor john speak of? But it was used in the time of Ambrose. So 
Ambros. de Sacralib. 1. cap. 1.  were other needless matters, yet was it used to them that understood the whole office or service of baptism in latin. Augustine saith it was not lawful for any Barbarian, or Latin man to translate the words, Amen & Alleluia, which all nations do sing in the Psalms, into his own language. For thus he coteth De doct. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 11. & inter Epist. 174. but in neither of them do I find any such matter. Certain it is that Augustine doth give the signification of them both in latin. Of the Marcionistes (I said) they learned to give women leave to baptize: Bristol saith, we do ourselves therein by order of our book as much as they do, but he is deceived: there is no permission in the book for women to baptize. Touching the necessity of baptism, we have spoken before cap. 6. Finally I said the Papists are Pelagians for holding free will, and merits of works, as they did, & not predessination and grace as S. Augustine did, Bristol citeth Hierom. Cont. Pela saying, that it was the heresy of the Manichees, to take away free will. So it was in deed to affirm that the will of man was enforced or constrained. But that the will of man, is free from the thraldom of sin, and hath power to merit, without grace, or with grace more easily, it was the heresy of the Pelagians as Augustine in whole books written against them doth declare: But August. Epist. 46. saith, That by the grace of God a wicked man may be made a just one, and so may begin to have good merits, which God shall crown when the world shall be judged. I answer by merits he meaneth works and not deserts: for else how saith he elsewhere (in Ps. 101. & divers places beside) that God crowneth his gifts and not our merits, where he useth the name of merits, for deserts? where I said the papists colour Pelagianisme with their distinction, De congruo & condigno: Bristol saith we do like hypocrites conceal before the people, the distinction of merits before grace, and after grace, for they hold that a man cannot merit the grace of God De congruo without Gods help, although they have no resolute warrant to call the contrary Pelagianisme or heresy. And why have you no warrant? for rear you should condemn divers of your chief pillars the schoolmen for heretics, which hold contrary to that you hold, and yet you all hold that a man may dispose himself unto a certain aptness to receive the grace of God by the power of his free will. Where I said God is as much bound to congruity as to condignity: Bristol saith I imagine that if God do not that which is congruous, he doth against congruity. Now good sir saith he, It is congrue to his mercy, to save the simple that are out of the Church, which is not congruus to his justice But good sir, I pray you dispute not so of congruine, that you oppose God's mercy to his justice, there is nothing congrue to hismercie, which is not congrue to his justice, for unto whomsoever he will show mercy, he hath received for them satisfaction to his justice, in the person of Christ: yet Bristol hath another example for condignity: For God to save all the world, it is condign to the merits of Christ, yet he damneth innumerable, because it is condign to their own merits. By this it may be inferred, that God yieldeth not to the merits of Christ, so much as they deserve, because the merits of many men do hinder, as though the merits of all men do not deserve damnation of condignity, & then what cause is this, why God giveth not to Christ's merits so much as they are worthy to receive, because many deserve damnation? This foolish sophistry riseth by reasoning from possibility of Christ's worthiness, to the act of men's worthiness. But compare act with act, and God saveth all his elect for the worthiness of the merits of Christ by his mercy: and damneth all the reprobate for the worthiness of their sin, by his justice of predestination denied by the papists, as it is defended by S. Augustine Bristol speaketh never a word.  
In the 39 demand which he calleth Inconfessed heretics only: where I answering to the question of Allen Pur 421. 422. with an other question or demand why it was revealed, first to the Arrians in council, that the article of Christ's descent into hell was meet to be added to the Creed which was not in any symbol before. Bristol first surmising, as his manner is, that which was never thought of, at last confesseth this article to be added in an Arrian Creed, Theodor. Lib 2. cap. 21: affirming that it was before that, in the Apostles Creed, but thereof he bringeth no proof nor witness. The judgement of the scriptures and not of men's opinions argueth heresies. Let the writings of the Apostles try whether of us is departed from the doctrine of the Apostles.  
In the 40. demand which he termeth, They never afore now. Where I said we agree with the most ancient fathers in the chief and most substantial articles of faith: Bristol saith, I confess his purpose. For Vigilantius, iovinianus etc. did much more agree with them in such articles, yet were not of their church, could not be, and would not be. How prove you that Vigilantius was not of the Church, or would not be, although he dissented from Hierom? As for jovinian, although we hold no part of his assertion in manner as he held, yet his error was not so great, that he might not be saved with it. Few of those fathers but had as great errors as that. It seemeth you would have no man to be of the ancient Church, except he agree with the ancient fathers in all their errors: if it be proved out of the holy scripture that Hierom erred, in that wherein he dissented from Vigilantius, why is heto be allowed in that error, more than in other things wherein he and other of those ancient fathers erred.  
Where I doubt whether Apostolici in S. Bernard● time were slandered: Bristol saith it is a poor and fowl shift, because Bernard himself is witness against them, as though it were not possible that Bernard might be deceived by miss●information, of them that envied such kind of men as they were.  
Where I say it is certain that Panperes de Lugduno were slandered: Bristol saith I prove it not. They prove it themselves, being now and long since openly known to have continued in their unity from the time of joan. Waldo, who separated them by his doctrine and example from the whore of Babylon, in Calabria, Mora 〈…〉, & France. Where have been whole cities or towns of them, as Merundal, Cabriers etc. Wherefore it is an impudent assertion of Saunder, to say they were friars. etc.  
In the 41. demand of studying all truth, Bristol affirmeth, that with friars and other catholics, all learning had been packed away, if the princes had not erected a few petite schools, so he calleth not only great colleges, but also whole Universities lately erected. But is there any man so ignorant of the time of suppression of Abbeys, that he would think all learning was in friars and other papists? Where I say there was never greater store of learning in any age, then is now in protestants: bristol, maketh me still a child in the grammar school, which thinketh no man can be better learned then his master, saying: We that know your and the Catholic schools, can but laugh at your childishness. Why Bristol, doth no man know the learning of popish universities but you? I have seen and heard something in the most famous university in Europe, and yet I saw nothing, that Cambridge and Oxford may not be bold to compare with it, except it be in multitude of students. Where I speak of the tongues and rational sciences: Bristol is bold to affirm. There are more declamations in Greek in one common school of the jesuits, then in both your universities (I dare say being joined together. What dare you not say, that have determined to supply in bragging, that you jacke in learning? if you had named the number, we must perhaps have yielded to you, if happily our number of Greek declamations be not so great as yours. But to give you an estimation, by that I know of one, and one of the lesser sort of colleges in Cambridg, for the number of Greek declamations, there are a dozen poor scholars of new erection, since her majesties reign which are bound to declaim in greek every Term, beside their weekly exercise of versifying in greek and latin, and their competent knowledge in the hebrewe tongue, required in them by their foundation, before they can be elected to those places. By which you may guess, that the knowledge of the laerned tongues, are not so dainty in our universities, as you think. Yea, he dare say they have better masters of art of two or three, teaching through out all Logic and Philosophy, then with us in seven years. This childish brag, whereof there is no trial, cometh of the spirit of pride, wherewith Satan puffeth up the Papists, that although in the multitude they be far inferior to the professors of the truth, in any kind of good learning, and for the best of them nothing superior: yet every one of meanest knowledge, among whom I take Bristol for one, so swelleth in opinion of his learning, that he contemneth even them whose skill he never assayed. But their masters of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Poetry, Logic, Philosophy, do not count themselves learned in divinity, which they never studied, or better learned in it, than the professors of it, lacking the tongues, or eloquence, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, the Apostles. And what I pray you, do masters of other sciences among us challenge the knowledge of divinity which they never studied, or think themselves better learned in it, than the professors of it? But wherefore join you to Thomas Aquinas, who in deed lacketh both tongues & eloquence. S. Augustine, who was a master of eloquence, and not ignorant in tongues, & especially the Apostles, which were endued with heavenly eloquince, and knowledge of all tongues? But it is rudeness and barbarousness (saith Bristol) in our country, to think ae mere grammar schoolmaster sufficient to be doctor of divinity, yea and a Bishop also, not for other quali●●es, but even for divinity. I cannot deny, but it were rudeness and barbarousness so to think. But I utterly deny, that any mere grammar schoolmaster in our country is so preferred as you most slaundeiously off 〈…〉 me. For the person whom you prick at, is well known, to be excellently well learned in divinity, & so to have been many yeared before his preferment, as his learned labours, even against popery, are in hands of men to testify. But seeing you make it so strange a matter for a man, to be called from a grammar schoolmaster to be a doctor in divinity: It seemeth you have not observed (for I know you have read all things) what Eusebius writeth of Origenes, who being a teacher of Philosophy, Geometry, Arithmetic, & other liberal arts, for his knowledge in divinity, was made a doctor of the Church. And why might not this our Bishop be taken out of the grammar school, as well as your White in Queen Mary's time? Is the same matter that was wisdom in you, become barbarousness in us? But regnum gramma●icorū is post date, all are not children, as they were when this gear began: your tongues will not now serve, no nor your study of divinity in Calvin's schools: come once to the Catholics schools (saith Bristol) and you will be ashamed of yourself, as many a one is, that thought, himself at home, and was thought of others a jolly fellow. No no master Bristol (for I must requite your courtesy, seeing once in your life you call me master Pulke) we need not come to your popish schools, to see your learning, you bewray it sufficiently by your public writings. And as for the kingdom of grammarians, I marvel why you scorn us with it, as though we had not attained to the kingdom of any other science or learning. But although we list not to make such large brags of our learning as you do, I for my part would be ashamed, if there were any knowledge that in any age was counted good learning, wherein our side should not be found as forward in England, as any Papist in the world. As for the slanderous and witless railings, of the heretic Stancarus, preferring the Master of the sentence, before so many Luther's, Melancthons', Calvin's, &c. we esteem as much as the barking of a dog against the the Moon. Would God we might all meet in some University, where better trial might appear of both our knowledges, then wise men may gather by our boasting.  
In the three and forty Demand of succession, where I said, there is no such succession of persons and places, promised, as the Papists boast of: Bristol saith, the saying of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. promiseth a continuance of Pastors and Doctors unto the end: which I confess, but yet is not the orderly succession of persons and places thereby proved, there shall always be Pastors and teachers in the Church, but it followeth not, that they shall continue in succession of the same rooms, in the same places, as the Papists boast of the succession of Popes. That he defendeth the offices of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, to continue always in the Church by succession, being a gross error, I will not stand to confute, because it is none of the principal matters in controversy.  
Where I said, that if succession of persons and places were sufficient, the Greek Church is able to name as many, as the Latin Church, and in as orderly succession, Ar. 27. Bristol asketh, what of that, but only this, that they therefore may better claim the Church than we? Yes this one thing more, that by this my showing of succession in the Greek Church, which you can not deny, Allen is bound to recant; and that the Greeks by title of succession, may claim the Church as well as you. But those heretical and schismatical Greeks (saith Bristol) can no more show succession than your false Bishops, which are in the sees of Poole, Bonner, Thirlby, etc., and yet I ●ro●e, he will not thereby claim succession. We may by as good right as you claim succession to the Apostles, and godly Bishop of Rome, whom you succeed not in doctrine. For neither have you any right succession, but from them that began your heresies and separation from the Christian Church, Boniface the third and his fellows. But Gregory saith, the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Church of Rome. But so doth not the Counsels of Constantinople, which before Gregory's time decreed, that the Church of Constantinople should be equal in all things with the Church of Rome, the title of seniority only reserved: because Constantinople was new Rome. Socr. li. 5. cap. 8. Sozomen. li. 7. ca 9 evag. li. 2. ca 4. Conc. Constantinop. 1. ca 2. etc.  
In the 44. Demand of the Apostolic see, where I say it availeth not the Papists, that the Church was planted at Rome, by the Apostles, except they can prove succession of doctrine, as well as of men: Bristol saith: In proving the succession of men only, we do as much as the Fathers did. But I say that is false, for the fathers allege succession of doctrine in the persons succeeding.  
In the 45 Demand of changing, where I cite the Epistle of Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge, witnessing that Gregory was the first that compelled Priests to live unmarried: Bristol answereth, that seeing I confesst, that he revoked his error, he made no change from his father's faith: Yes sir, although he revoked his decree, yet was the same received by them that came after him. But the story of that Epistle is derided by Cope, which affirmeth, that Pope Nicholas the first was dead 56. years before Vdalrichus was made Bishop. Thus these impudent Papists, when they can neither corrupt, nor wrest to their purpose, the monuments of antiquity, they will utterly deny them.  
Whereas the Papists contrary to the old usage of the Church by Allens confession, do absolve before satisfaction: Bristol saith, both manners have been always used, and bringeth example of men absolved i● sickness, which if they recovered, performed their satisfaction after. But Papists absolve them that are in health before satisfaction, which is contrary to the old usage.  
Where I tell them, that Sabinianus condemned the decrees of his predecessor Gregory, and Stephanus of Formosus: Bristol saith, not one Pope, hath condemned any decrees made of doctrine. It were hard for him to prove, that none of those Popes, all whose acts their successors disannulled, made any decrees of doctrine. And certain it is, that Gregory made decrees of doctrine, or else the Pope's Canon law doth lie, all whose decrees, yea and books also, as containing heresy, his successor Sabinianus condemned and burned. But supposing (saith he) that Pope Honorius was a Monothelite, both in opinion and in some secret writing, yet did he not change, nor go about to change the Romans into Monothelites. What meant he then to write heretical Epistles, but to draw other into his heresy? Did not his writings to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, plainly discover him to the Council, that he followed that heretics mind in all things, and confirmed these ungodly opinions? Con. Constantin. 6. Action. 13. And to what end? but between 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 plain contradictory unto Bristow'S bold and lying affirmation, I will rehearse the words of Pope Leo the second, in his Epistle unto the same Council, Act. 18. Pariterque anathematizamus etc. Also we accurse, the inventors of the new error etc. naming them, & among them Honorius which did not lighten this Apostolic Church, with doctrine of Aposto like tradition, but by profane treason, did go about to overthrow the immaculate faith. Yet against all this testimony of antiquity, Saunder in his Monarchy proveth, that Honorius was no Monothelite, and that john 22. did not, as Caluine and we bely the story, deny the immortality of the soul, and resurrection of the body, neither was any such thing laid against him by his contentious enemies, but whether the souls do see God before the general resurrection, but he also denied that error etc. To this I must needs say, that Bristol is either an ignorant reporter, or an impudent liar, except he will say that Caluine or some of us wrote, the report of the Council of Constance, where he was accused and convicted by witness, to have denied the mortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Session. II. And in the next Session he confessed, that the Council of Constance was most holy, and could not err. As for the assertion of Pope joane the feminine Pope, I refer the reader to Master jewels reply to Harding, where he proveth it, by ancienter testes, than Martinus Polonus, how so ever Bristol saw it in a marginal note, I wots not where, not in what Protestants hand, as he reporteth.  
In the six and forty Demand of our ancestors saved or damned, he marveleth where my wit was, when I alleged against Canonization, the example of burning Hermannus the heretic in Ferraria, where he was worshipped twenty years Apocryphally. But if he had not been canonised as you say, where was the Pope's care of the Church, that so near him in Italy, he would suffer such gross idolatry, so long time to be committed and continued? Wherefore except you bring better prose for your negative the affirmative that he was canonised, which so long had been worshipped, without contradiction is more probable, seeing you hold that the Romish Church can not suffer any ungodly usage, so long to be uncontrolled.  
Where I said, the Papists can not prove, that the Pope and Popish Church hath canonised the Apostles & principal Martyrs: Bristol asketh, if making of holy days, and to name them in diptychis among saints, in the holy Canon of the Mass is not proof sufficient, of their canonisation. No sir, if that be canonisation, which your late Canons and practice doth allow: but if it were, I say, the Apostles and principal Martyrs had days of remembrance of their godly life, and doctrine, names in the tables, and at the celebration of the lords supper, before canonisation was thought to pertain only to the Pope. As for our abrogating of Saints days, doth not disprove our Communion with the Saints, which is in consent of their faith, not in celebrating of their feasts. Concerning the canonisation of King Henry the sixth: Bristol requireth mine author for a dilatory plea, because he can not otherwise defend the Popish corruption. Mine author is Edward Hall in his Chronicles of Henry the seventh, where I said we acknowledge those to be Saints, whose names are written in the book of life. Bristol like a black dog scoffeth at it, and saith, we might do well to set out that book in print, that they might correct their Calendar by it. Or else the Church's declaration is the most certain way to know who are written in it. If none should be written, but such as the Pope doth canonize (for that is your Church's declaration) innumerable Papists, should have no place therein, and not only Papists, but the true Saints of God, of whom not one among ten thousand, hath been canonised. Where I say, the Popish Church doth injury to the Saints of God, that she doth not so account them while they live: Bristol saith I would be called Saint Fulke, by mine own industry, and that out of hand. Thus hath he nothing but Heathenish scorns, to delude the texts of Scripture, which I cited, to prove that the Church of GOD counteth all true Christians Saints, even in this life, not by their own industry and merits, but by the sanctification of the blood of Christ.  
He is angry that I compare the Pope's canonisations with the Heathen Senate's canonizing of their Gods, saying, we do the like in canonizing ourselves, because we account ourselves saints, and true Christians, which is all one, and because I show, the emulation of the Bohemians, in solemnizing the memories of john Hus and Jerome of prague, which differeth as much from Popish canonisation, as their faith and religion differeth from Popery.  
In the 47. Demand of communion of Saints, he boasteth of increase of Papists in England, affirming, that beside them which are Catholic in heart and of their communion, there be innumerable of them reconciled, which he saith, to prepare the minds of his friends unto their intended massacre and rebellion. I suppose in deed, there are too many of those dissembling and professed traitors: but yet not so many, but they may be numbered. But how many so ever they are, I doubt not, but there are Christians of such number and power in England, as are able to give all the Papists both on this side the sea, and beyond it, as black a day as the Pope's army found in Ireland, if ever they attempt to put in practise their long intended and certainly purposed treasonable devices.  
In the 48. Demand, where I show the fruits of the Gospel, being urged thereto by Allen, Pur. 241. to appear notably in the liberal provision for the poor of all sorts in England, and namely in the city of London: Bristol calleth it beastly impudency: yet is he not able to name any Popish city, that maketh such provision; but falleth into open railing, upon the corrupt manners of all the city, as though for the fault of many, (which yet God's name be praised, are not the most) the whole city were not inferior to Sodom and Gomorrhe in wickedness: In which place as being very populous, there are many offenders, so are they punished if their offences may be known. But who so knew London in the time of Popery, and now also considereth the manners of the multitude, must be a very unequal judge, if he acknowledge not great reformation in a great number, though he can not see it all. As for the city of Rome, which Bristol compareth with Solomon, whose Priests were more excellent than the report that went of him: as by the story and relation of them which knew it before this time, so by report of some which even in this time have visited the same, we have sufficient understanding, that without great reformation, it still continueth the mother of all abominations of the earth, and reaching forth the cup of poisoned wine, unto such as seek her whorish familiarity, maketh them therewith so drunk, that there is no cause why Bristol should marvel why nothing confirmeth more our countrymen in Popery, nor alienateth them from the Protestants, than to go and see Rome.   

The eleventh Chapter.  
What gross contradictions Fulke is driven to utter against 
Bristol.  himself, while he struggleth against God's Church, and the doctrine thereof.  
As in his whole reply, he hath drawn almost all the arguments 
Fulke.  and authorities, which I used in those two treatises, unto other ends and purposes, than for which I brought them: so to make a show of Contradiction, he rendeth a number of my sayings from their proper places, & compareth them together, to make such as know not what a Contradiction meaneth, to think that I affirm and deny mere repugnancies, without any possibility to reconcile them. But when they are considered according to the circumstance of the place, in which they are written, I hope there are not many of so mean judgement, but they will acknowledge, they are rather the cavils of Bristol, than the contradictions of Fulke.  
The first Contradiction he noteth, that I say, Art 96. You are never able to answer the arguments that Peter was never at Rome. And then where is the Apostolic see? etc. And then on the conirarie side: the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles, it was an Apostolic Church. For this he quoteth Purg. 361. 363. 374. To this I answer: In the first part he falsifieth my words, which are these: You are never able to answer the arguments, that are brought to prove that Peter was never Bishop at Rome, and then where is all your brags of Apostolic see and succession? etc. The Church of Rome might be an Apostolic see, though Peter was never there: but all your brags of Apostolic see, and succession are vain, if Peter was never Bishop of Rome.  
The second: Those ancient Fathers did appeal to the judgement of the Church of Rome against all heresies, and among the Catholic Churches, especially named the Church of Rome, because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, Pur. 373. 374. Contrat And by the way note here the brag of the Roman faith Pur. 405. The former proposition is not mine, but patched by him, yet if I grant the sense and words to be, as he hath forged them, they are not contradictory to the latter proposition. For heretics may brag of that which Catholics use to do: and yet not be Catholics.  
The third: It had by succession (speaking of the Church of R 〈…〉) retained even until their days, that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Pur. 374. Contra: She the Church of Rome hath had no orderly succession of Bishops, except so many schisms as they writ of, be orderly successions. By the time of these Fathers (saith Bristol) there had been four schisms. Ar. 85. Answer. In the first proposition I speak of Tertullians' time and succession of doctrine, and name succession simply. In the second proposition I speak of the whole time until our days, and of succession of persons, and of orderly succession: therefore no contradiction.  
The fourth: It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles, it retained by succession that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Pur. 373. 374. Contra: he chargeth it with sundry errors here cap. 3. & 4 namely P. Liberius with Arianisme. P. Innocentius for housling of Insantes, and eight Popes for the supremacy. I might answer, that the charging of the Popes, chargeth not the Church. but in the first proposition, I spoke of the Church of Rome, in the time of Irenaeus, and Tertullian, holding the doctrine of the Apostles, contrary to those heresies against which they writ.  
The fift: It was a true Church, and Apostolic Church, a faithful Church, true and Apostolic faith and religion have dwelled in her. Pur. 374. Ar. 79. Contra: The Church of Rome never preached the truth. She never had since she first arose the ministering of sacraments according to Christ's institution. The true Catholic Church hath overthrown heresies of all sorts. But the Popish Church was never able to encounter with heretics. Rome may be a nurse of Antichristi 〈…〉 ns, but never did good to Christians. I am able to prove that the primitive Church affirmed your Church to be the Church of Antichrist. Ar. 85. 16. 106. 10. 27.  
The latter part of this contradiction, with as many falsifications as there be quotations, do sufficiently declare, that in all those places, I speak of the Popish Church of Rome that now is, and not of the true Church which of old time was at Rome. Yet to give the reader a taste of his falsification of my words Ar. 106. which he rehearseth thus. Rome may be a nurse, etc. in truth they are these: Rome which feedeth her babes with poison of man's traditions, in stead of the milk of God's word, and will rather see them famish than they should taste of God's word, may well be a nurse of Antichristians, but never did good unto Christians.  
The sixth: The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy, whereof the whore beareth a cup full, out of which all nations have drunk. Ar. 102. 38. Even from the Apostles ●ime the devil never left to set in his foot, for his son Antichristes dominion, until he had placed him in the temple of God, and prepared the wide world for his walk, and then came the general defection. Pur. 287. Contra: all nations never consented to the doctrine of the Papists. For it hath been often said, the Greek Church and (all) other Oriental Churches (of Assa and Africa) never received the Popish religion, in many chief points, and specially in acknowledging the Pope's authority, they will not unto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholic, nor her authority to be lawful. Ar. 38. 16 33. 34.  
These places being both full of falsifications, yet if they had been in so many words set down by me, employ no contradiction. For it may be, that all nation's, (meaning as the scripture, whose words I cite Apoc. 18. not all of every nation, but some of all nations) have drunk of the whore's cup, and yet never received her religion in all things. And the general defection is meant of that great apostasy that S. Paul speaketh of, in which the greatest number shall fall from Christ, though they fall not all to the Pope. For many are fallen to Mahomet, many revolted to idolatry, many to other heresies beside Popery.  
The 7. The religion of Papists came in, and prevailed in the year of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his Antichristian exaltation to wit, Boniface the third of Phocas the Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the Church. Ar. 36. Contra in the same place: Because you speak of the first entering of Popish religion, which dependeth chief upon the Pope's authority: it first began to advance itself in Victor, about the year of our Lord 200. What contradiction is here? Popish religion in one piece first began to advance itself Anno 200. and after came in and prevailed, Anno 607.  
The 8. The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy. Even in the Apostles time, and from that time, in all times, when so ever, and where so ever was any piece of mist or dark corner, there were the steps of your walk. It may be a shame for you Papists, to leave and condemn for heresy, all that is true in the Father's writings, and agreeable to the scriptures. Ar. 102. Pur. 287. 238. Contra: Where he dictinguisheth the religion of the papists, from the great heresies, and open adversaries, that sought to beat down the chief foundations of Christian faith, as the Valentinians, Marcionistes, Manichees, Arrians, Sabellians, and such like monsters. Ar. 43. He falsifieth my distinction, which is not of the religion of the Papists, but of the first beginnings of such errors in the time of the ancient Fathers, which among the Papists are grown to be in manner as great as the monsters of Valentinians, Marcionistes, etc. And yet there can be no contradiction, where the subjects of both propositions are not all one. But here the one is of the Popish Church (which is a member of the malignant congregation of Satan) the other is of the religion of Papists. The Papists by communion of the devils Church, communicate with all heresies.  
The 9 We say not that the religion of Papists came in suddenly, but that it entered by small degrees at the first: and therefore ●a●●esse espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies, not preached against, winked at, because it had a show of Piety and Charity, and at length allowed of Augustine and others, who followed the common errors of their time. Specially when a general defection, and departing from the faith was foreshowed, what marvel were it, if none cold preach against it as it first entered? Ar. 43. 36. 38. Contra: The Church of Christ in such places as she is, suffereth no man damnably abusing her religion, without open reprehension. Ar. 92. 36. 37. The former proposition hath manifest forgeries, as that I should say, The religion of papists was not preached against etc. Winked at etc. Allowed of Augustine etc. For I never said so of the whole religion of papists, but of some few errors budding up in ancient times. But both Ar. 36. where I ask What marvel &c. as an objection, I do nevertheless show who preached against the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome, which yet tended not to a damnable error; & Ar. 38. I affirm, there was both preaching, teaching, and writing against it.  
The 10 The true, catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions, contrary to the word of God, as her duty was, and fought against them, and obtained the victory, and triumphed over them. Ar. 11. Contra: In those ancient times they of the true Church, did not always weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God: but if heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety or charity, they would draw it into use. So they took into the Church of Christ, many abuses and corruptions, until at the length, An. 607. the religion of the papists prevailed. And since that time that devilish heresy hath always increased in error until the year 1414. Pur. 419. Ar. 35. 36. The former proposition is directly spoken and meant by me, of heresies against the truth, and other articles of faith: That which is mine in the latter patchery and falsification, is spoken of small errors and idle ceremonies.  
The 11 That blasphemous heresy of purgatory, which is most blasphemous against Christ, against the blood of Christ, against his merits and satisfaction for our sins, and against God's unspeakable mercies: and occasion of most licentious wickedness in all them that believe it, nothing convenient for the disciples and members of Christ. No suffrages were made for the dead by the Apostles or their lawful successors. To the reader, Pur. 26. 166; 184. 177. 269. 362. 363. 419. 186. Contrà: here. cap. 3. he confesseth that the fathers held it, and yet notwithstanding, that they were members of the true Church (cap. 2.) and held the foundation of jesus Christ (cap. 5.) & all the substance of true doctrine: And also that they did invocate Saints: denying in other places that such be true Christians. The like of fasting. Pur. ●93. 405.  
I never confessed those godly fathers to hold purgatory in such blasphemous sense, as the papists do, nor yet prayer for the dead, or invocation of saints. By fasting, I know not what he meaneth, for in the page, whereto he sendeth me 141. is no such matter spoken of, nor fasting once named.  
12 The opinion of Purgatory and satisfaction of sins after this life, is the very doctrine of licentiousness, to maintain wicked men in their presumptuousness. For what haste will they make to amendment and newness of life, when they have hope of release after their death? Pur. 51. 26. 166. 177. 184. Contra: As Saint Augustine saith, it is but for small faults: or as M. Allen saith, for great faults that by penance are made small. And is God such a merciful father to punish small faults so extremely in his children, whom he pardoneth of all their great and heinous sins? Pur. 448.  
The latter part of this pretenced contradicton is not mine, but Allens assertion, which I rehearse to show the absurdity of his exposition of the happy rest promised. Apo. 13.  
13 How long soever the true Church were hidden, whether i● were a 1000 years, or 2000 years, this is certain, that out of this Church none could be saved. Ar. 73. Contra, here cap. 5. he counteth it enough, if the faith of their salvation were in the only foundation jesus Christ, and that in such a sense as agreeth to men indeed out of the Church.  
The whole faith of their salvation is in the only foundation jesus Christ, in such such sense as I speak cannot be out of the Church.  
14 They which hold the foundation, that is Christ (to wit the Article of justification by the only mercy of God, and of the only son of God) are doubtless members of the true Church of Christ. Ar. 61. ●4. Pur. 2●8. Contra: here cap. 10. where he saith, that the Anabaptists are abominable heretics, and that they are not Protestant's: who yet do hold that article jump as the Protestant's do.  
It is a loudly, and never said of me, that the Anabaptists do hold that article jump as the protestants.  
15 A general departing from the faith, was foreshowed, and it was fulfilled An. 607. Contra: The Church was never lost (neither when the departing was general) but hidden (in the wilderness, that is) from the eyes of the world. She is to this day preserved, and shallbe to the world's end. Christ hath never wanted his Spouse in earth, he hath ever been a head without a body. Ar. 36. 38. Ar. 71. 78. 79. 80.  
The general departing from the faith, was not of all persons, but of most in all nations: and therefore the Church never failed.  
16 The primitive Church of the Apostles hath continued unto this day by succession not of persons and places, but of the doctrine, faith, and truth. These verte words contain a manifest contradiction. For how can a Church, or doctrine, faith, and truth continue, but in persons and places? in so much that he saith also: We doubt not, but God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers, that have instructed his Church in the necessary points of Christian Doctrine. Ar. 2. 96. 26. 27.  
These words contain no contradiction. For the Church may continue in persons and places, although not by continual succession of persons in the same places. Bristol forgetteth his rules of contradiction, opposing continuance by succession of persons and places, to continuance in persons and places.  
17 The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast & inseparable from Christ her head, though the blind world, when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his Spouse, but persecute her, as if she were an adulteress, Contra: in the same place: The true Church under the emperors Constantinus, Constans, and Valens, was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius. And in another place: The visible Church may become an adulteress, and be divorced from Christ. And so is that faithful Church of Rome become an harl●●.  
This contradiction is made up with a falsification of my words: The true Church under the emperors Constantius, etc. For I say not, the true Church, but speak generally of the Church, which suffered persecution until Constantine, which was the visible Church, under which name many heretics were persecuted. Visible Church is not always the true Church.  
The 18 The true Church consisting of Gods elect, and the lively members of the body of Christ, shall never commit such adultery etc. But the visible Church may separate herself from Christ. As though there were an other Church besides the visible Church, and so two churches. Contra: Wheresoever the Catholic Church be in parts, it is one body of Christ.  
There are not two Churches, but one. The catholic Church is always invisible: the militant Church on earth, which is a part thereof, is to the world sometime visible, and sometimes not seen of the world.  
The 19 Anno. 607. the Church fled into the wilderness, that is, out of the sight and knowledge of the world, there to remain a long season: where all this while God hath preserved her until such time as he thought good, now in our days to bring her out of her secret place in the wilderness, into the open sight of the world again. Ar. 16. 27. 79. 36. Contra: divers times it was bold to challenge preaching & ministering of the sacraments, yea and so boldly, that it cost many of the challengers their lives: As Berengarius, Brumo, Marsilius de Padua, joannes de Gaudano. joannes Wickleve, Waldo, joannes Hus, jeronymus de Praga, etc. Ar. 77.  
The only show of contradiction, is a falsification of of Bristol, reporting my words, Where all this while etc. As though the Church hath always been so hidden, the no members thereof might appear. But those words be of his own cavillous composition, & not of my writing. But here beside the contradiction, he noteth two things against me, One, that it cost not all these, yea, very few of these there lives. Neither did I say, it cost all, but many, to justify this multitude: john Hus and Hierom are expressed beside many hundrethes that are contained under etc.  
The other matter is that neither these before appearing, were secret protestans, but open papists. Belike he would bear us in hand, that their open appearing & conversion from popery, was both in a moment of time. But what if some of them were first papists, and afterward returned from popery to the catholic Church, as Hus & Hierom, being converted by certain Englishmen, yet were they not all such, for Waldo was never any papist, but a christian Catholic, who seeing the horrible enormities of the Romish synagogue, openly with many thousands, I renounced her communion, when she would not be reform at his godly preaching.  
20 To bring her again into open light. Which is now brought to pass in our days. Are, 16. 9●. Contra: from the year of our Lord 1414. (being the time of the Council of Constance) the bright beams of the Gospel have shined in the world. Ar. 36.  
I see no sign of contradiction in these words, except these propositions be contradictory: The bright beams of the sun do shine in the morning before the sun be full risen: &, the same is seen in open light after he is fully risen above the earth.  
The 21 The revelation of Antichrist (with the Church's flight into the wilderness) was An. 607. when Bonifacius the 3. etc. For until then the mystery of iniquity was preparing for his revelation & coming, & for the general defection. Ar. 38. 36 16. Contra: She hath not decayed there in the wilderness, but been always preserved, until God should reveal Antichrist, which is now brought to pass in our days. Ar. 16.  
The revelation of the mystery of iniquity was, when Antichrist himself did openly show that iniquity which before was not thoroughly discovered. God revealeth Antichrist, when he openeth unto men his horrible wickedness, which to them were unknown. A wonderful contradiction of Antichrist revealing himself, and God revealing Antichrist.  
The 22 The Churches being in the wilderness, was, to be out of the sight & knowledge of the wicked. Ar. 27. 95. Contra, speaking of the same space, She was narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long season. Again: Although it were known to the papists, yet it was in Italy when Marsilius of Padua preached: in France, when Waldo: in England, when Wickleve: in Bohemia, when Hus, and jerom of prague did flourish. Why? all these were well known to the papists. As though the Church could not be persecuted in her members, except she were all knownen, or known to be the Church by her persecutors.  
23 A rule of the Logicians: No man knoweth a relative, except he know the correlative thereof: Therefore though Christ had a body in earth. yet could it be known of none, but such as knew Christ the head of that body, of whom the papists were ignorant. A 1. 80. Contra: Our Church is now again brought to light and knowledge of the world. Ar. 96. So that now belike the papists know Christ, or the Logicians rule is verified only for the time of the Churches being in the wilderness, according as in other places he moderateth the matter, saying: We believe that the Church is not always known to the wicked upon earth. Pur. 150. Ar. 77. 79, 80.  
Whether the papists know Christ or no, certain it is, they will not acknowledge him, who came into the world, which was made by him, and yet the world knew him not, whom they would not acknowledge. The papists cannot say, they know not our Church, although they will not acknowledge her to be the true Church, and so my saying is true, that our Church is brought into knowledge even of the world of papists. The rules of Logicians are always true, but they are often ill kept by popish sophisters, as the rules of contradiction here by Bristol.  
24 We believe that the universal Church is not seen at all of men, because it is in heaven Pur. 405. Ar. 95. 82. 74 80. Contra: Our Church, when it was most hidden, might rightly be called Catholic (that is universal) etc. Here Cap. 10. Dem. 6: And whereas you say, that no man alive could name the place where it was, you make an impudent lie: For although it were unknown to the Papists and enemies thereof, yet was it known to the true members thereof.  
I see no opposition, except you will say, there is no knowledge but by bodily sight, or that some members of the Church, may not be seen in earth, because jerusalem the mother of us all, is above.  
25 And as for our Mother Church is no certain place, or company of men in any one place upon earth, but jerusalem which is above, is mother of us all. Pur. 377 Contra: That no man alive could name the place where it was, is an impudent lie. It was in Italy, when Marsilius preached, etc. Vt suprà in contrad. 22. Christ hath never wanted his spouse in earth, though the blind world when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his spouse, but persecute her as if she were an adulteress. She was known to them that were her children. The church of Christ is the nurse of Christians. jerusalem that is from above, is mother of us all. Ar. 95 79 82. 106.  
Those are as great contradictions as these. Bristol is at Louane. Bristow'S foot is in his shoe. The whole Church and mystical body of Christ is in heaven: therefore some members and parts thereof can not be on earth.  
26 It is not called Catholic, because it should be every where. For that it never was, nor never shall be. Ar. 95. Contra: It should overflow and fill all the world with righteousness. isaiah. 10. That God hath an holy universal congregation, it is necessary to believe. It is dispersed in many places over all the world. Ar. 73. 83. 80.  
It is not every where: and it is in many places: be not contradictory. And the remnant may overflow and fill the world with righteousness, as isaiah saith: although it fill not every place and person thereof, nor most places and persons always.  
27 Christ's church is now by GOD enlarged further than the Popish church. Ar. 12. 3. 69. Contra: It is but a small flock in comparison of the malignant church (of Antichrist) whose number is as the sand of the sea. Apoc. 20.  
The Popish Church is not so large as the malignant Church of Satan by many parts, which containeth all the wicked of the world, the name of Antichrist is added by Bristol. Yet are there more Antichristes than the Pope, although he be the chief that sitteth in the temple of God.  
28 It is a good argument, that the Popish church is not the church of Christ, because it was never hidden since it first sprang up: in so much that you can name the notable persons in all ages, in their government and ministery, and especially the succession of the Popes, you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. And it were a token that our church were not the true church, if we could name such notable persons in their government and ministery. Ar. 27. Contra: Such officers as are necessary for the conservation of God's people in the unity of faith and the knowledge of Christ, our Church hath never lacked, notwithstanding that through injury of the time (because our Church had not so many Registers, Chroniclers, and remembrauncers) the remembrance of all their names is not come unto us. For the authority of the Bible, we have the testimony of the true Church in all ages. Our congregation hath ever had possession of the Scriptures. GOD hath never suffered the true Church to be destitute of the necessary use of the Scripture: Which the Popish Church hath so kept in an unknown tongue, that the people could have no use, much less the necessary use thereof. The Church of GOD hath always had Schools and Universities for the maintenance of godly learning. The true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions. It was never so secret nor hidden, but it might be known of all those that had eyes to see it. That a thousand years there was gathering together for preaching, ministering, and correcting. God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers. The Church hath never been afraid to do her office towards her children and true members, in teaching, exhorting, comforting, confirming, etc. Ar. 28. 27. 9 6. 5. 52. 11. 74. 75. 26. 82.  
In these large propositions, howsoever they be patched, I see no contradiction. Except these be contraditories: The Church was sometime hidden from her enemies: and yet where she was gathered, did perform all duties to her friends and children. It was not seen of the blind, but it was seen of them that had eyes.  
29 The Popish Church was never hidden since it first sprang up. Ar. 27. Contra: The Church of Rome hath not always practised open preaching, and never preached the word of truth. Ar. 85.  
There was small preaching before the orders of begging friars began to supply the want of the pastors. And yet the popish Church glistered in her whorish pomp.  
30 Touching the text Matthew 5. of a city built upon an hill, which can not be hidden, after he hath given his sense of it, he saith: Hereby it appeareth how fond some Papists (and some of the Doctors in their error) do expound this place to grove, that the Church must always be visible. Ar. 100 Contra: even in his own exposition there: It is properly meant of the Apostles and their successors the Ministers of the Church: he teacheth them above all other men, to look diligently to their life and conversation: for as they excel in place and dignity, so the eyes of all men are set upon them. As a city builded upon an hill, must needs be seen of all that come near it, so they being placed in so high an office and dignity, shall be noted and marked above all other men. One part of the Church is always visible to the eyes of all men, and can not be hidden: and yet the whole Church, and so also that part, is not always visible, but may be hidden, and was hidden for a thousand years. So he saith.  
The whole Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, is invisible. Although the ministers of the Church and their conversation, can not be hidden from the members of every particular Church.  
31 The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles time. And so the error of praying for the dead was continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the Church of Antichrist. Contra: The Primitive pure church for the space of an hundredth years after Christ. Again: Anno 607. The church fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season, where she hath not decayed, but been always preserved, until God should bring her again to open light now in our days. The true church shall never decay, but always reign with Christ. The false synagogue shall ' daily more and more decay, until it be utterly destroyed with Antichrist the head thereof. If this be not contradiction, it is much worse, to wit, that Luther and his Apostles have given us a visible church which shall not decay, Whereas Christ and his Apostles gave us a visible church which did decay, yea and plainly departed away into Apostasy.  
The places show that decaying hath double understanding. The true Church soon after the Apostles, decayed in sincerity, yet never decayed nor shall decay in continuance. Luther gave no Church; but even that Church which is best lightened by his preaching, may decay in sincerity, if the pastors be not diligent to teach the word of God simply.  
32 At every word he calleth the Pope Antichrist, and the head of the malignant church. Contra: in some places he maketh two distinct heads and their distinct companies. As, when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the West, seduced the world, than the church fled into the wilderness. Again: The Popish church is not in every part of the world: for Mahomet's sect is in the greatest part. Ar. 16. 65.  
I call the Pope Antichrist oftentimes: but that I call the Pope head of the malignant Church, though Bristol saith I do it at every word, yet he is not able to note one place where I do it, rather Bristol maketh a flat contradiction in saying of me, At every word he calleth the Pope the head of the malignant church. Contra: In some places he maketh two distinct heads, and their distinct companies.  
33 That the true church may err, and hath erred, notwithstanding any privilege it hath by God's spirit, we heard him say, cap. 3. Now to the contrary. Neither hath the spirit of God failed to lead her into all truth. There be some prerogatives of God's spirit, that are necessary for the salvation of Gods elect, as the gift of understanding, the gift of faith, etc. And these the spouse of Christ hath never wanted. True faith, etc. might be signs of the true church. The spouse of Christ heareth the voice of Christ, and is ruled thereby. The church of GOD is the pillar and stay of truth, so called, because that where so ever the church is, either visible or invisible, there is the truth. Saint Paul by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers, how great a burden and charge they sustain, that the truth of the Gospel can not be continued in the world, but by their ministery in the church of God, which is the pillar and stay of truth. This their duty true preachers considering, are diligent in their calling to preach the truth. As our church is the pillar and stay of truth, so is she also the house of truth, which knoweth nothing but him that is the truth itself jesus Christ, and his most holy Scripture, in which this truth is signed and testified. We require you to believe the true Catholic church only: and immediately again to the contrary: We require you not to believe any one company of men, more than an other. Ar. 82. 81. 93. 99 62. 77. 100 108. 62.  
This contradiction is easily reconciled. The true Church may err, but not in any point, that is necessary to everlasting salvation. We require men to believe the true Catholic Church only, not for the company, but for the truth.  
34 The error (of Purgatory and praying for the dead) is continued from a corrupt state of the church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the church of Antichrist. Contra: The true and only church of God is so guided by God's spirit, and directed by his word, that she can not induce any damnable error to con●●n●●: No, nor suffereth any man damnably abusing her religion, without open reprehension: and yet Purgatory, etc. came in with silence.  
The error of praying for the dead, was not damnable, while it continued in the Church of Christ, the Church of Antichrist by derogating full satisfaction from the blood of Christ, hath made it damnable.  
35 The church of Christ hath of the holy Ghost a judgement to discern true writings from counterfeits, and the word of GOD of infallible verity, from the writing of men which might err. She hath commended the books of holy Scripture to be believed of all true Christians. We persuade us of the authority of God's book, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit for the authority of it, with the testimony of the true church in all ages. Ar. 5. 4. 9 Contra: All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you. For other writings may be counted the works of their authors, without your censure: the holy Scripture may not be counted the word of God, except you list so to allow it. Other writings are of credit according to the authority of the writers: The holy Scriptures with you hove not credit according to the authority of God the author of them, but according to your determination. Pur. 219.  
Here is no show of contradiction, but a wretched begging of the principle, that the Popish Church is the true Church of Christ. Of such contradictions you may make not 50 but 500000.  
36 Those that by true Christians have been called and counted for heretics, have proved so in deed. Ar. 65. Contra: This Demand hath a false principle: that the church ought to be a Christian man's (only: it is not in Doctor Allens principle) stay in all troubles and tempests.  
The first proposition is an Ironical imitation of Allens absurd proposition, and not an absolute assertion of mine.  
37 And therefore the Papists, being called and counted heretics of true Christians (that is, of the Protestants) without doubt are heretics in deed. Are 65. Contra. He is a foolish Sophister, that reasoneth from names to things: as you do most vainly and childishly. Ar. 66.  
The former proposition, is the conclusion which I retort upon Allens principle, that whosoever by true christians are called heretics, do prove so in deed.  
38 There is never heresy, but there is as great doubt of the church, as of the matter in question. Ar. 86. Contra: Augustine's argument of the public prayers of the church, took no hold of the Pelagians by force of truth that is in it, but by their own confession and grant, of that prayer to be godly, and them to be of the church that so prayed. But now the controversy is not only of the substance of doctrine, but of the church itself also. The Donatists challenged the church to themselves. Pur. 367.  
Here is not so much as any shadow of contradiction, for in the heresy of the Donatists, the chiefest controversy was of the Church: as for the prayer of the Church, they used it themselves as well as the true Catholics, out of which prayer Augustine gathereth an argument against them.  
39 But for the chief points of christian religion, and the foundation of our faith, that is, Real presence, etc. the most approved writers are utterly against you, and therefore can not be of your church. Contra: But the Lutherans and zwinglians (as it pleaseth you to call them) are of one true church, although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament, the one affirming a Real presence, the other denying it.  
The contradiction is easily avoided, by showing, that the real presence among a number of things in that place rehearsed, may be one chief point of religion, and yet not a foundation of our faith. For I say the ancient fathers agree with us in the chief points of religion, and the foundation of our faith, which seeing the Lutherans hold with us, the dissent in one chief point of religion, can not dissever them from the Church, and yet they descent not unto idolatry, as the Papists do. And where Bristol slandereth me to say, that I count the errors of some of that latter sort of old fathers (in honouring relics invocation of Saints, merits, traditions, unwritten verities, images of the cross) to be contrary to the foundation, he is able to show no place where I so affirm. And albeit they did so earnestly maintain some of those errors, that they condemned by their private censure, the contrary truth, for heresies: yet it followeth not that they were heretics. For it is one thing to hold an error earnestly, an other to hold it obstinately, so that he is condemned of his own conscience, when he will not yield to the manifest truth plamly proved out of the word of God.  
40 We know that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously err in any article of faith, concerning the substance of religion. Luther, Caluine, and Bucer, shall come with Christ to judge the world. As for Illyrians, if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus, they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament, and differ only in ceremonies, which can not divide them from the faith. Ar. 10. 61. Pur. 403. Contra: What Flaccius, or any such as he is, hath said, neither do I know, neither do I regard, let them answer for themselves: But whereas you charge M. Caluine, etc.  
Because I know not how Illyricus, and such contentious persons as he, expoundeth the anointing in Saint james, but refer them to answer for themselves, therefore I speak contrary to myself, where I say they differ not in faith, from the Lutherans.  
41 There is never heresy, but there is as great doubt of the church as of the matter in question. Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian man's conscience. Ar. 86. Contra: The Church is the ●ay of truth. If that argument of the Church without trial which is the Church, might take place, it would serve you both for a sword and a bucklar. The church saith it, and we are the church. Therefore it is true. Pur. 367.  
It seemeth Bristol is beside himself, in coining of contradictions. These words, The Church is the stay of truth, for which he quoteth Pur. 367. are not mine in that place, but his own addition: although in other sense I confess the Church is the stay and pillar of truth, not that all is true which is always in the Church, but that truth can not be preserved on earth by the Church.  
42 Among the arguments that Augustine useth against the Pelagians, one (though the feeblest of an hundred) is, that their heresy was contrary to the public prayers of the church. Contra: All other persuasions set aside, he provoketh only to the Scripture, to try the faith and doctrine of the church, namely in beating down the schism of the Donaistes, and the heresy of the Pelagians. Where also he contradicteth himself again, in showing the reason why he argued against the Donatists of only Scripture, but against the Pelagians of the church's prayers also: The Pelagians granted them to be of the church that so prayed. And therefore when Augustine had to do with the Donatists that challenged the church unto themselves, he setteth all other trials aside, and provoketh only to the Scriptures.  
Let the reader's judge: for I can not imagine where there be should be so much as the shadow of a contradiction, gathered out of these words, except he mean, that he which provoketh only to the scriptures, may not use an hundredth arguments out of them, yea or many persuasions beside the scriptures, and yet stand only upon the authority of the scriptures.  
43 We stand for authority only to the judgement of the holy scriptures. Pu. 432. Contra: The ground that we have to persuade us of the authority of god's book, is, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit, for the authority of that book, with the testimony of the true church in alages. The church of Christ hath a judgement to discern the word of God, from the writings of men. The primitive church's testimony of the word of God we allow and believe. You should bring a great prejudice against us and passing well provide for the credit of your cause, & the discredit of ours, if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitive pure church for the space of a hundredth years after Christ, or something out of any Authentical writer, which lived within one hundred years after the Apostles age. Ar. 9 5. 10. Pur. 364. 331. Ar. 21. 39 42.  
The first proposition (as in the place quoted is manifest) is spoken of questions of doctrine: and not of our persuasion of the scriptures to be the word of God. The last sentence, You should bring, etc. being patched out of two places of my book, Pur. 364. and 331. are not contradictory to the first proposition: for although we stand for authority only to judgement of the holy scriptures, yet we are content to give you this advantage against us, if you can bring any thing out of those eldest writers for Purgatory or prayer for the dead.  
44 Saint Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without colour or coverture, the only right order of ministration. Contra, in the next line: I know the Papists will flee to those words of the Apostle, The rest I will set in order when I come. That is manifest to be spoken of matters of external comeliness, and therefore (say we) of the order of ministration. Pur. 362.  
In rehearsing my words, he leaveth out five lines of my saying, between the words Coverture, and The only right, etc. which declare that I speak of the essential order of ministration, against Allen which affirmeth oblation of the host for the quick and the dead, both generally and particularly, and a solemn prayer for all departed in Christ, to be necessary parts of the order of ministration of that Sacrament.  
45 The old Doctors never heard Purgatory named, nor prayer for the dead. Pur. 438. Contra: About S. Augustine's time, the name of Purgatory was first invented. And long afore that also, Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists, etc. Here cap 3 pag 23. And yet again, Before Chrysostom's time it was but a blind error without a head. Pur. 356.  
My words are of the heresy of Purgatory, and my meaning of those old Doctors, in comparison of whom Saint Augustine is but a puny, being younger almost by 300. years, in whose time although the name of Purgatory were inue●ted, yet the heresy was elder in Montanus. How prayer for the dead came into the Church, it was uncertain in Chrysostom's time, and therefore I say it was a blind error without a head.  
46 In Saint Augustine's time, Satan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatory. Pur. 54. Contra: That error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded up in his time. Pur. 161. And specially here, cap. 3. pag. 14 saying: And this I think is the right pedigree of prayers for the dead and Purgatory, where he putteth the very last generation of it to have been in S. Augustine's time, and the foundationlong afore Christ's time.  
It were a strange contradiction, that could be picked out of these two allegories, laying the foundation, and rifely budding; seeing the foundation is the beginning of a building, and budding is the first towardness of fruit As for the pedigree, is not to the last generation, as Bristol saith, laid in Saint Augustine's time, but from the first auctor how it was continued unto Saint Augustine's time, since which there have been many dissents before popish Purgatory were thoroughly shaped and brought forth.  
47 M. Allen affirmeth that after men's departure, the representation of alms by such as received it, shall move God exceedingly to mercy. O vain imagination, for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor. Pur. 242. 243. Contra: Chrysostom alloweth rather alms that men give before their death, or bequeath in their Testament, because it is a work of their own: than that alms which other men give for them, howbeit also such alms are available for the dead, he saith. Pur. 236. 237.  
That which Chrysostom speaketh of little help, will not serve Allen to prove that alms shall move GOD exceedingly to mercy.  
48 The ancient Doctors did hold the foundation. Contra: cap. 4 pag. 28. He saith, The third Council of Carthage did define, that it is unlawful to pray to God the Some, and GOD the holy Ghost.  
The Council of Carthage by that decree denied, neither the person nor office of Christ, nor of the holy Ghost, therefore they held the foundation.  
49 Here cap. 8. he saith, that the just of the old Testament went not to Lymbus Patrum after their death, but to heaven immediately. Contra: The fiery and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise, was taken away by the death of Christ, when he opened Paradise, yea the kingdom of heaven (whereof Paradise was but a sacrament) unto all believers, so, that the penitent these had passage into Paradise.  
The virtue of Christ's death extendeth to the old fathers for their salvation: as much as unto us, yet the cause which opened paradise and the kingdom of heaven, was the death of Christ, by God's ordinance appointed to work righteousness for all the elect, as well before the time of his suffering, as since.  
50 Who so denieth the authority of the holy scriptures, thereby bewrayeth himself to be an heretic. Contra: I say not this (here cap. 9 pag. 170. that Eusebius was not accounted an heretic) to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. james. As Martin Luther and Illyricus, for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing.  
My words be not alleged truly, in neither of both propositions. In the former they are these, I will not gainsay, but whoso denieth, etc. I do not always affirm, that I will not gainsay. I may be in doubt. But to grant that I had affirmed the first proposition absolutely: what contradiction do I make in saying that Eusebius although he affirmed the Epistle of Saint james to be a counterfeit, was not accounted an heretic? Shall other men's account be joined to mine affirmation, to charge me with contradiction? Again, the former proposition, Who so denieth, etc. If it be affirmed, must be understood of such as deny the scriptures which are once received generally, because they are contrary to his opinion. If he mean the contradiction to be, for that I say: I will not excuse Martin and Illyricus which doubt of the Epistle of Saint james, for that I am persuaded they are more curious than wise in so doing: I must tell him, that doubting of the scriptures is not denying them, neither is foolish curiosity like by heresy.  
Last of all, where he chargeth me with falsification of Allens words to avoid a shameful absurdity ensuing of his affirmation, he playeth his old parts, first in falsifying my words: where I say to reduce, he saith to redeem: secondly he saith, that Allen speaketh of him that now leadeth a godly life, but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof by repentance, or satisfaction of his loathsome life past. The very words of Allen be these: This our adversary, Math. 5. here signifieth our brother, which hath just quarrel against us in judgement, for that we would not give ear unto him sharply admonishing us of our faults, being therefore an adversary to our vices and fleshly conversation. In which sort to us that are flesh and blood, and ready to evil from our youth, all be adversaries that preach Christ, the amendment of licentious manners, repentance of our loathsome life passed, or else use against us the rod of correction and bodily punishment, that our souls may be saved in the day of the appearing of our Lord. To this kind of adversary Christ counseleth and commandeth us, for our great good, to agree and consent whiles we be here in the way of this our pilgrimage and transitory life, lest all these means which he wrought to reduce us, to the perfection of a Christian godly life, be as it were, a witness of our contempt, and himself our accuser before the judge, that shall so justly reward every man according to his deeds: that is Christ himself, to whom the father hath given all judgement.  
Now the words in which I reprove this absurdity of Allen, are these. But before we go any further, let us see how the doctrine of this chapter agreeth with that we had in the chapter next before. There we were told, that Purgatory serveth but for venial sins, or else for such mortal sins, as by forgiveness in this life obtained, are made venial trespasses. But here not only vices and fleshly conversation, but also contempt of all that preach Christ, and repentance of our loathsome life passed, etc. are said to be the debt that must be discharged in Purgatory to the uttermost farthing, than the which no vice is more mortal, nor further from forgiveness. For he that not only leadeth a loathsome life, but also contemneth all those means that Christ hath wrought, to reduce him to the perfection of a Christian godly life; (I use his own words) how can he have remission of his sins in this life? and yet Master Allen dare promise him, that the toleration of bands in the prison of Purgatory, shall recompense his debt, and bring him from thence into the blessed presence of Christ.   

The twelfth Chapter.  
A nosegay of certain strange flowers picked out of Fulke, 
Bristol.  that they which delight in such a Gardener, may see his handy work.  
The first flower is that I say, Pur. 283. the sacrifice 
Fulke.  propitiatory was offered in the law only by the high Priest, once in the year. But Bristol saith, that sacrifice propitiatory, and for sin are all one: which sacrifice for sin was offered, not only once in the year, in the feast of expiation, but also in many other feast days, ordinarily and extraordinarily; when so ever any occasion was ministered etc. I know not whether I should here accuse his ignorance, or his malice. Which confoundeth that singular sacrifice propitiatory (unto which the Apostle compareth the sacrifice of Christ's death, Heb. 9) with the often and usual sacrifices for sin, saying they are all one. When that one above all the rest is described with such solemnity, that the high Priest that day only entereth into the holiest place, that he may offer that holocaustum or the burnt offering, etc. And that it should be an everlasting ordinance to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins once a year. levit. 16. Wherefore the other sacrifices for sin had their virtue of that shadowy or sacramental propitiation, of this principal sacrifice, which was the most lively pattern or example of the only true sacrifice propitiatory, which our Saviour Christ offered on the cross; once for all: which proportion is observed by the Apostle, Heb 9 ver. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. etc. & Heb. 10. for 11. & 12. But where Bristol saith, beside this one propitiatory sacrifice, Fulke findeth none, but sacrifices of thanksgiving in the law, he affirmeth that which was neither said of me, nor is truly collected of him. For I said, that Cyprian in these terms, sacrifice, priest, altar, alludeth to the sacrifices of thanksgiving in the law, because he useth also the name of Levites, by which he calleth God's ministers. Let Bristol now go and say, that Levites also offered sacrifice propitiatory in the law.  
The second flower of mine ignorance is, where to deface the sacrifice of judas Macha 〈…〉 aeus, I say that both the high Priest at that time was a wicked and ungodly man, to wit, either jason, Menelaus, or Alcimus, and namely Menelaus, the worst of them all three: and also that the other Priests of that time, were given to the practices of the Gentiles, 2. Machab. 4. In so much, that it is like that judas Machabaeus, if he devised not the sacrifice of his own head, yet took by imitation of the Gentiles. first he marveleth, how I could think that Machabaeus had any commnion with the Gentilizers, against whom all his fighting was, seeing it is written first of Macab 4 that he chose priests without spot, having their heart in the law of God. I answer being such as they were described. 2. Machab. 4. he had hard choice to find a sufficient number of unspotted priests. But although he were an enemy of gentility, in that corrupt time and state, he might be drawn into imitation of the gentiles in some point that had a show of piety, although it were not agreeable to the law of God.  
His next accusation is, that I call them high priests which were but antipontifices and usurpers. I answer, I justify not their title, more than their manners and religion, but whereas by his greekelatine word, he supposeth that there were other true high priests in their time, he bewrayeth his own gross ignorance. For whereas he saith that the succession of the true high priests for that time was this: Onias, Mathathias, judas. jonathas, Simon: The truth is, that Mathathias and judas were never high priests, neither doth the Story 1. Macc. 2. or 1. Macc. 3 which he quoteth, show any thing to prove that they were: It sayeth that Mathathias was a priest, but not that he was the high priest. And josephus who did write an history of the Maccabees, testifieth plainly that from jacimus to jonathan, for 7. years there was no high priest, which jonathan was made high priest in the year 160. joseph. Antiqu. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 1. Maccab. Cap. 10. verse 21. which was many years after judas his brother was slain. Therefore at such time as judas should send the offering to Jerusalem, there was no such good Bishop, as Allen saith: but even Onias cognomento Menelaus, as josephus calleth him, which was deprived both of his life and of his high priesthood at Berytus or as the corrupt story of the Macchabees saith, at Berea. 2. Macc. 13. called in the first of the Maccabees Bethzetha. But whereas Bristol maketh jonathas or Simon chief priests in the absence of judas, and not Menelaus, he forgetteth that in those expeditions which judas made from Jerusalem, for which he quoteth 1. Macc. 4. 5. it is plain in the same chapter, that Simon was sent with an host into Galilee, and jonathan went with his brother judas over jordane into Gilead: which story, how he will reconcile with the 2. Mac 12. either for time or persons, I have great marvel. But that Menelaus, as he was then in office of the high priest, though unworthy, so that he was at Jerusalem, it appeareth by this record of the time. The Temple was purged (as Bristol confesseth,) and it is written 1. Macc. 4. Anno 148. in the 25. of the month Cislewe, and in the same year Antiochus Eupator by letters sent to Lysias commandeth that the Temple should be restored to the jews, whereof Lysias writeth to the jews the 24. of the month of jupiter, Corinthus and king Antiochus himself, with letters bearing date the 15. of the month Panticus sendeth Menelaus to comfort the jews. 5. Mac. 11. And the next year after Anno 149. Antiochus came into jewrie, and did execution upon Menelaus, and made war upon judas, etc. 2. Macc. 13. and ordained jacimus high priest, which continued in that place 3. years. josep. Antiqu. Lib. 20. cap. 8. If that this account of the second book of Maccabees, agree not with the story of the first book, as in deed it doth not, let Bristol look ●●to it, that defendeth these books to be Canonical: it is sufficient for me to justify that I cited out of this latter book, by the report of the same book: and by josephus, who knew the succession of the high Priests of his nation, better than Bristol, whose arrogant ignorance is so much the more odious, that he would charge me with oversight, in that he is most ignorant himself: and that against his Master Allen, who supposeth some other to be high Priest or Bishop, and not judas himself.  
The third chapter, of my gross or rather malicious ignorance, is said to be about Antichrist: As that the Church of Christ should prepare his way, or work his mystery. But this is a fable of Bristol, never affirmed by me. As for the other assertions of the time of his revelation, of the Churches fleeing into the wilderness, of the time of Antichristes reign, etc. because they are condemned by the only authority of Bristol, without any argument or testimony of Scripture, or Fathers, I will refer the reader to such places, where I affirm any of them, to consider my reasons, and to judge indifferently.  
The fourth point is, that the body of Christ is not offered to himself, but thanksgiving is offered to him for the offering of his body for us. Pur. 316. Against this, his reasons are these. Why sir, did not he upon the cross offer his own body as a Man, and a Priest to himself as to God? Sir, the Scripture telleth me, that Christ being an high Priest, by his eternal spirit, offered himself unreprovable to GOD: Hebr. 9 verse 14. Ergo, you will say to himself as God, because the persons of the godhead are undivided. Yet I trust you will distinguish the humanity from the deity, & so Christ offered not his body to himself, that is, neither to his humanity, nor to the person of the mediator, which is God and man. For though God was made man, yet God the Father was not made man, nor God the holy Ghost, but God the Son only. And although it were granted, that Christ offering himself to God, was offered to himself, yet it followeth not that men of whom I spoke, can offer the body of Christ, yea whole Christ to himself, than the which nothing is more absurd. another reason Bristol bringeth: that I noted others for saying, it is not lawful to pray to God the son. As though it were all one to pray to Christ, & to offer his body to Christ, himself to himself. The fift: That I call it a vain amplification and fond supposition to extend the force of Christ's death beyond the limits of his will. My words are of Allens supposition, that the full force of Christ's death would sup up all sin & all pain for sin, death temporal, and eternal, hell, purgatory, and all pain, etc. But what reasons hath Bristol against my saying? First: my assertion is (saith he) As though it were not of force to work any whit more than it worketh in act, as to save so much as one of them that shall not be saved. I say, it is of force to work even as much as God will, but not to work against the will of God. But I speak contrary to the express scripture. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1. joh. 2. If you understand the whole world, for every man in the world, than it followeth, that God is reconciled for all men, & so no man shall be damned. But S. john meaneth by his general word, all the elect of the world: as when he saith, The whole world is set on mischief; he meaneth not every person, but all the reprobate 1. joh. 5. And that Christ's death is not a propitiation of the sins of all the wicked of the world and reprobates, it is certain, by that he refuseth to pray for the world, that is, for the reprobates of the world, john 17.  
But Bristol urgeth me with mine own saying, in an other contrary to this. Concerning the sufficiency of Christ's redemption, there is nothing that can be spoken so magnifically, but that the worthiness thereof passeth and excelleth it. This should have come in among the contradictions, if Bristol had remembered it. But I beseech you sir, in commending the sufficiency of Christ's redemption, do I extend the force of his death beyond the limits of his will? Are any more redeemed than Christ would?  
The sixth: I say, that to remit sins, is proper to his divinity. That is (saith Bristol) as though Christ doth not remit sins, according to his humanity. I say Christ which is a person consisting of God and man, doth remit sins by absolute authority, but that is proper to his divinity and not to his humanity, as for the power which he hath given to his ministers, to remit sin, is not absolute, but to declare remission of sins in his name. Neither did the people which glorified God for giving such power to men Matth. 9 acknowledge the doctrine of the Church for the remission of sins by the ministry of man, but praised God for giving the gift of healing unto Christ, whom yet as young scholars, they acknowledge not to be God, but an holy Prophet sent of God. And so the other Evangelists report their praising of God to have been for that they never saw it so: they had seen wonderful things that day. Mark. 2. Luk. 5.  
The 7. he chargeth me to teach a pestilent doctrine of desperation, Where I say, there be sins for which the Church ought not to pray, even of men remaining in this life: for which it is not lawful to pray: which by the mercy of God are not pardonable: it is false, that so long as men are in this world, they may repent. For which he quoteth Pur. 274 127. 128. 135. 283.  
After he asketh how many such sins there are? and saith in one place I name two, and after more, and after concludeth that in some I say, that it is unlawful to pray for any wicked person, of what sort so ever his wickedness be, so long as he continueth in his wickedness: yea, and it is unpossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickedness. This is a pestilent slander, for I never accounted any sin irremisible, but only the sin against the holy Ghost: for obstinate and wilful apostasy is the sin against the holy Ghost, whereof a fruit is final contempt of all that preach Christ, and of all means that Christ hath wrought to bring us to repentance, such was the sin of Saul and of the obstinate jews, for whom Samuel and jeremy are forbidden to pray.  
As for that I should say, it is not lawful to pray for any wicked person, etc. I never thought it, but only for those that sin against the holy Ghost, of whom Saint john saith, they sin unto death, and I say not that any man should pray for that. 1. joan. 5. Nevertheless Bristol affirmeth, that we are worse than the novatians, when I say, That some sins neither by the mercy of God are pardonable. But where do I say so? he quoteth before, Pur 128. And what be my words there? Verily who so will turn the book, shall read them thus: For by the justice of God all sins are mortal, but by his mercy they are all pardonable, except that sin unto death, whereof john speaketh. 1. joh. 5. Thus am I worse than a Novatian, for saying, the sin against the holy Ghost shall never be pardoned, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. But perhaps Bristol will cavil, that even that sin is pardonably by God's mercy, if God would: which is not contrary to that I said. For I speak of that which may be, God's eternal will standing, according unto which the Apostle saith, it is impossible that they which so offend can be renewed by repentance. Hebrews 6.  
The heresy of the novatians as Bristol affirmeth of the report of Aresius their Bishop was: That they who after baptism, fall into that kind of sin. which the holy scriptures call sin unto death, ought not to be admitted to receive the divine mysteries, but to be exhorted to repentance, and to look for hope of forgiveness, not of the Priests, but of God, who both can and hath authority to forgive sins. In which sentence, a double error of the novatians is included: first that they took that sin unto death whereof Saint john speaketh. 1 john. 5. to be falling through frailty in time of persecution, even as Bristol doth, the wilful prolapsion and Apostasy that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 6. Secondly that they thought the sin unto death might be remitted of God, contrary to the manifest denunciation of our Saviour Christ. Matth. 12. As Bristol doth the sin against the holy Ghost, which is all one and the same. But that the Catholic Church did then by her Priests forgive all sins without accepting the sin against the holy Ghost, which Bristol affirmeth out of the confession of Acesius, I marvel how he proveth. Yea, he is so impudent to say, that the Protestants also do admit all to their Calvin's bread, so the blasphemous dog barketh against the holy Communion: whereas we never receive any whom we know to be excommunicated, and much less would we receive any apostata, that is clean fallen from Christianity, not of weakness or ignorance, but of malicious contempt; or any whom we might know to have sinned that sin unto death, and to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost.  
But now let us see what miserable comfort Bristol will minister against desperation, in answering such places of scripture, as I brought, to prove the sin against the holy Ghost to be irremissible.  
First the place of 1. john 5. he saith is meant of them that be dead and damned in hell, as he hath taught us: cap. 8. but because I refuse that interpretation, as false and new, he citeth Augustine. in ret. li. 19 cap. 12. whose interpretation at the first was as I hold, but afterward he addeth, if he end his life in this perversity. For we must despair of no man, be he never so wicked, so long as he is in this life. Neither is prayer made unwisely for him, who is not despaired of. Here are two contrary expositions of one man, in which we must consider whether is more proper to the place, and not whether better or last pleased the author of them.  
That no man is to be despaired of, while he liveth, as it is contrary to the scripture, so to the practice of the Church, which refused to pray for julianus the apostata, and prayed to God against him.  
Maris also the Bishop of Chalcedon, denounced him to his face to be impious, and an apostata, and enemy of God. Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 10. Sozo. lib. 5. cap. 4.  
The second text, Heb. 6. Bristol expoundeth it of falling through frailty in persecution, of them which can not be renewed by baptism, but the Apostle saith expressly by repentance, and therefore speaketh not of lapsion or falling, but of prolapsion or falling clean away from Christ, with manifest contempt of his grace and redemption.  
The terrible denunciation of Christ against the obstinate and malicious Pharisees Matt. 13. Mar. 3. Bristol faith, he speaketh it not to drive them to desperation, but to move them to repentance. What if that be granted, that by showing the danger of malicious obstinacy, which groweth to irremissible wickedness, he should admonish them to beware in time, as the Apostle doth, Heb. 6. Doth it therefore follow, that no man sinneth irremissiblie, while he liveth? Although it is plain, that our saviour Christ denounceth their damnation as men so obdurate in their wickedness, that nothing could reclay me them, or bring them to repentance. But Bristol would make me contrary to myself, who though in express words I count D. Allen & his fellows such as (by you) Heb. 6. cannot repent, yet do exhort them truly to repent. etc. Pur. 461. But how proveth he, that I count Allen and his fellows such as cannot repent? Forsooth because I say, they have sometime been lightened and tasted of the good gift of God. Why sir, are all such come to prolapsion? I trow not, In deed I admonish them being in the way of prolapsion, that are curable. Whether Allen were ever a protestant, I know not: but certain I am, that some of his fellows have been lightened and were protestants, of whom I speak, and not of him. If I say Bristol and his fellows which are laymen: do I say Bristol is a lay man? This wilful & malicious cavilling (Bristol) if you take not heed of it in time, argueth that you are fallen very deep, if you be not yet at the bottom of apostasy.  
But this is a cunning comforter of them that are in desperation, which affirmeth, that Christ doth no otherwise say that such sin and blasphemy shall not be remitted, than he saith that all other sin and blasphemy shallbe remitted: and therefore many one, yea, and above all number may be and is forgiven, the sin against the holy ghost.  
He meaneth, because the condition of repentance is not expressed in them that are forgiven. But if that condition were to be understood in them also that sin against the holy ghost, what distinction were there for which he should say? that blasphemy and sin shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come? Such a sinner hath no remission of sins, but is guilty of eternal damnation. For that none shallbe forgiven, without repentance, as every man knew without that distinction. But Bristol would have it to be an extraordinary matter for God to forgive the sin against the holy ghost, and so he forgave one of those Pharisees, and he the very worst of them all: namely S. Paul, who had been indeed a Pharisee, as he confesseth. Act. 23. & 26. but none of those Pharisees: for he knew not, Christ in the flesh. 2. Cor 5. yea, he had been a persecuter and a blasphemer, as he confesseth 1. Tim 1. but not the worst of all Pharesees, for he was an elect vessel of God, and his persecution and blasphemy was not of malice or sin against the holy ghost, but of ignorance and blind zeal of God: for he addeth immediately, but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. As for those Pharisees, against whom our Saviour Christ thundereth that judgement, did blaspheme the holy ghost against their own conscience, and knowledge, maliciously attributing unto the devil, that which they knew to be the finger of God.  
That which I speak out of Samuel, jeremy, and Ezekiel, Bristol saith, is all spoken in one sense, of temporal matters, to wit of casting Saul from his kingdom, and the jews into captivity. But except the persons had been incurable, God would have been entreated to give them repentance, & to have continued Saul in his kingdom, and the people in their country. The rule that Ezechiel. 33. is understood of sins that are not against the holy ghost, as the examples do plainly declare.  
The 8. point is, that strange interpretation of the creed, (a● he calleth it) Christ descended into hell to redeem us out of hell, by suffering the wrath of God for our sins. Heb. 5. First Bristol saith, there is never a word of that article, and much less of the interpretation thereof, in that chapter, yet after to prove that to be prayer, which I said was a complaint, as though it might not be be a complaining prayer, he citeth the 7. verse of the same chapter of Christ, who in the days of his flesh, with a mighty cry, and with tears, offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him, out of death, and was heard from his fear or from that he feared 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But by this text, Bristol would prove, that Christ was not forsaken of his father, no not corporally, although he complained, that he was forsaken, as though his lamentable complaint hadbeene more than needed, when he said, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? which to him that was God, was greater torment of hell, than any heart of man can conceive. And therefore Bristol, which maketh all to stand in the bodily death of Christ, and raileth at Caluine for showing how necessary it was for Christ, to suffer in soul as much as in body, for the redemption of the whole man, doth nothing but cavil & slander, one while feigning that Caluine should make two deaths of Christ, another while, that he was in fear lest he should have been damned for ever etc. Which he saith also shallbe my reply. But when Bristol saith that Christ's bodily death without any suffering of his soul was the full redemption of the world, he maketh his torments of mind, whereof he complaineth that his soul was heavy unto death, which made him to sweat blood before his body was touched, to be of no force, except it were to argue great imbecility of Christ, who feared so much bodily death, that many of his servants have joyfully embraced, and that strange cry and tears with which he uttered his prayers on the cross, and that most lamentable complaint, that God had forsaken him, were for nothing, but for that he was not delivered from the cross, (as Bristol writeth) it is too much injurious to his most bitter passion to imagine, and therefore we must needs acknowledge, that he suffered more in the sight of God, whose justice he was to satisfy, than he suffered in the sight of men. And so the question that Bristol propoundeth to me, is answered, why descendit ad inferos, cometh after sepultus, because the order of the Symbol is first to show, what suffered before men, and then what hesuffered in the sight of God. As for the blasphemy of Theodorus Mopsevestenus that Christ had inclination to sin, etc. there is no more reason why Bristol should charge us with it, then with those other blasphemies, that Christ did despair in God, or blaspheme God, or commit some other sin against God, for our redemption, which he affirmeth to be maintained of some calvinists. For which detestable slander, if he have no better ground than he showeth, let him remember that the mouth which lieth killeth the soul. I will spare to amplify, though I lack no matter, albeit that Bristol feigneth monsters of slanders, as jupiters' Giants, & then casteth them down with thunderbolts, deriding myknowledge in amplification.  
The 9 is about the honour of the virgin Marie, wherein first he chargeth me with the heresy of the Heluidians & Antidicomarianites, who were condemned for heretics for denying her perpetual virginity; whereas he cometh nearer to the Colliridians, likewise condemned, them we to the Heluidians. But let us see his impudent quarrels. First I say: As for the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ, as we think it is true, so because the scripture hath not revealed it, neither pertaineth it unto us, we make no question of it. Here is a great conjunction with heretics, which troubled the Church with contention a bout a matter which they were not able to prove by the scriptures: yet saith Bristol, you forge a principle of only scripture in their favour. Surely that principle as it is not forged, so it favoureth them nothing at al. For their contentious assertion they were not able to prove by the scriptures, but within 4. lines afore, I am contrary to myself, where I say all truth may be proved by the scripture. If I had to do with a man of reason, as I have to do with a papist, he would understand my proposition according to the whole matter in controversy, of such things as are necessary or profitable for a christian man to know unto salvation. For otherwise I think many things to be true, that are not contained in the scriptures: As I think that Bristol lacketh wit, learning, & honesty, thus to quarrel which is not written in the scriptures, but gathered by other reasons: yet he saith, I might which more honesty have said, that it may be proved by scripture, where she saith, Luk. 1. Because I know no man, that is (saith he) because I have made a vow of virginity. A like matter, that she would marry if she had made a vow of viginitie. Yet Bristol confesseth this place proveth not invincibly her perpetual virginity, although it so prove her vow. But if Bristol were condemned, or had vowed to lie in prison until he could frame an invincible argument to prove her vow, out of that place, yea, or any other place of the scriptures, it were all one, as if he were condemned to perpetual prison or vowed the same.  
Another point of that dishonour is, where I controlled Allen for excepting the mother of Christ, when he speaketh of sinners, which is all one as if he had said, Christ was not a saviour of his mother, or that she had no need of his salvation. And here he chargeth me with reading Caluine more than Augustine, as though Augustine defended the virgin Marie to be free from sin, because he saith against the Pelagians, that he would have no question of her for the honour of our Lord, when he speaketh of sins. For hereof we know that more grace was given to her, to overcome sin of all parts, which was worthy to conceive and bring forth him, 〈…〉 am it is certain that he had no sin, Denat. & great. 136. It is all one with Bristol, to overcome sin, & to be void of all sin. What victory is there without a battle? if the flesh in the virgin Marie, did not rebel against the spirit, what victory had she by grace? But it is plain Pelagianisme, to hold that she was void of sin or perfectly righteous. The Pelagian nameth also, ipsam etians domini etc. the very mother of our Lord and Saviour, which he saith it is necessary for godliness, that we confess that she was with out sin. But thereof Augustine for the honour of our Lord will have no question: signifying that although she were not clear and exempted from fi 〈…〉 e, but had grace to overcome sin, yet for reverence of Christ her son, he would not reason thereof to bring her within the common compass of all sinners. But Bristol perceiveth that I would not have so answered, seeing I affirm that by the reprehension of Christ, john, 2. she did offend, for he would never have reproved his mother without a cause. And said, what have I to do with thee, woman? except she had intermeddled in his office, more than of duty she ought. But Bristol would colour his reproof, two ways: one by false translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? what to me and thee, O woman? not understanding the greek phrase, which is by those words to refuse to have to do with one. As the devils Matt. 8. cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? What have we to do with thee, jesus, thou son of God, and not as Bristol translateth, What to us and thee jesus etc. But because Bristol saith, that if Christ should mean, that the want of wine pertained neither to him nor to his mother, yet she were not discharged of error, to move him in a matter, which belongeth neither to him nor her: He saith, I might do well to tell him, what were those sins of hers. I think the answer of Christ showeth what her offence was here, and Luk. 5. that she presumed to intermeddle under colour of her motherly authority, with matter appertaining to his divine office, of being Christ the mediator, with which she had nothing to do, as a mother, but was esteemed of him as a woman, who knew when it was convenient for him to do, whatsoever were for the glory of God's kingdom, to be done, without her or any other body's admonition. Neither do I charge her as Chrysostom in joann. Hom. 20. Optabat. enim. etc. For she wished that he might now win the favour of men, and that she might be made more noble by the favour of her son. And perchance she was moved with some human affection, even as his brethren, when they said, show thyself to the world, being desirous by his miracles, to win themselves a fame. Therefore he answered more sharply: what have I to do with thee, woman? my hour is not yet come. For that he did reverence his mother, Luke doth testify, that he was subject to his parents, and this Evangelist doth show, how great care he had of his mother in the time of his passion. For where his parents did nothing hinder the mysteries of GOD, did offend nothing, it was meet and necessary for the son to be obedient, neither could he deny obedience without great peril. Contrariwise, when they desire an unseasonable thing, and that which would have been an hindrance to spiritual things. Who is my mother and my brethren? quoth he. For as yet they had not such opinion of him as they ought: but Marry after the manner of mothers, thought she should have commanded her son in all things, by her authority etc. But the council of Trent (saith Bristol) showeth that she had more need of Christ's grace then all other saints, to preserve her from sin. But in the mean time, she had no need of his redemption, for the remission of sin, who was appointed to save his people from their sins, who came to seek and to save that which was lost, both of the house of Israel, and of the Gentiles, so many as attained salvation. So therefore howsoever Bristol scorneth at my divinity, I will still conclude that the virgin Mary, being so principal a person of Christ's people, was saved from her sins, by the redemption of his blood, was lost, but sought up, and saved by him. Which divinity being taken out of the scriptures, I trust is more commendable, than the contrary doctrine derived from the Pelagians, and defended by the Papists.  
The 10. point of mine ignorance is, about the definition of an heretic, whom I said to be a man in the Church. I have showed before, that I distinguish between him that is in the Church, and him that is of the Church; a Papist, an Anabaptist, may be in the Church, but they cannot be of the Church, except they repent. Where I added unto my definition, that if any of us can be proved obstinately to maintain our opinion, contrary to the doctrine of the scriptures, we refuse not to be counted heretics. Bristol saith, they may say the like. But the trial is all. Bristol saith, they bring plain scriptures to prove that all the doctrine of the Apostles traditions, is the doctrine of the scriptures. And we say the same, that whatsoever the Apostles delivered in speech, they delivered also in writing, and neither contrary to other. But that all true doctrine necessary to salvation, is not contained in the scriptures, that you prove not, neither that such things were of the Apostles delivery, as you call traditions of the Apostles. As for the particular points you prate of, concerning the time of the Church's persecution, and Antichristes reign, have been answered in their proper places. The words of Christ, This is my body: we acknowledge to be true, in such sense as he spoke them, neither can you prove that they import your carnal carpernaitical presence, what you hold of justification by works, Worshipping of Images, Insufficiency of Christ's redemption, Impeccabilitie of Marie etc. contrary to the express and plain texts of the scripture, it were out of place here o make rehearsal.  
The 11. is mine ignorance in wondering at Allen for saying, that a christian scholar should first believe, and after seek for understanding, he hath noted cap 10. Dem. 34. and there have I answered.  
The 12. point proceedeth of like ignorance, where I am said to wonder, when I hear that the sacrifice of the mass is a likeness of the sacrifice of Christ's death upon the cross. And then I am asked whether I know not that sacraments are not likenesses of other things: and Augustine is called to witness, with much ado, as though it is all one to have sacraments which are similitudes of Christ's death, and to have a sacrifice of similitude or likeness, which I said truly was contrary to the whole scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that there should be any shadows or resemblances, when the body and substance itself is come: which I spoke, supposing that Allen by likeness of the exemplar, meaneth the mass with all the apish pageants thereof, to be like the sacrifice of Christ's death. And indeed it was that monstrous saying of Allen, which I wondered at. By likeness of the exemplar (as indeed being in an other manner the very self-same. But Bristol setting a good countenance, upon so great an absurdity, asketh what boy hath not heard it said, of one & the same man being changed by age, sickness, apparel, shaving, etc. he is like or unlike himself? But tontrariewise, what boy in Oxford or Cambridge, would not reply, that this similitude or likeness or unlikeness, is of two several shapes, and not of one and the same substance unto itself: as Allen saith, the sacrament is like the body of Christ, and is the very same in another manner that is under coverture of accidents that belong to another kind of substance. But Bristol is not so quick to understand me where I understand not myself as he weeneth, where I say: neither will it help, that Allen saith, it is the self-same in another manner, so long as the same respect remaineth: I am sorry that Bristol is so dull headed, that he cannot understand, what the same respect meaneth in opposition, which if it not observed in the things opposed, they are not always opposite, and specially relatives who hang altogether upon respect. But Bristol asketh who can imagine, that the very same respect remaineth, when the same manner doth not remain?  
Why sir? what is the respect of the likeness of the sacrifice of the mass, with the exemplar? seeing you confess the manner tobe unlike, but the very identity of the thing sacrificed, which is the monster that I marvel at: as also that you cannot imagine the same respect, where there is not the same manner. Is not God, the father of our Lord Christ, in the same respect that Abraham is the father of Isaak, but yet after a far other manner? yea, to follow your own wise examples, is not Abraham father of Isaak in the same respect, when Isaak is young, and when he is old; when he is clothed, and when he is naked; when he is shaven, and when he was bearded; when he is sick, and when he is whole? Such are the manners in which you hold that the sacrifice of the mass, is the same after another manner.  
The 13. is where I attribute to divorcement, which the scripture in many places doth deny to divorcement, and doth attribute only to death. What is it? to make her no wife, that was a wife. Verily divorcement for adultery maketh her no wife, that was a wife, as is gathered even by those texts of scriptures which Bristol quoteth Matt. 5. & 19 Mark. 10. etc. where the exception of fornication, maketh the case to be the same that was used by permission of the law, in divorcements, and marriage after divorcements. But Bristol saith, I utter herein my skill, in many things. As in saying that marriage after divorcements is dispensed with all by the Pope. And do I not say true, although the Pope's law denieth such marriage to be lawful? Are there not many examples of such dispensations?  
Secondly I say, that the Pope's canon law hath far many more causes of divorcement then for adultery. Bristol distinguisheth the perpetual divorce, for adultery, where the innocent party cannot be compelled to receive the guilty party, although he become never so chaste; and separation, where the fury of a man is so great, that the wife is in danger of her life: ask if we do not allow her to dwell away from him until he be amended: No verily, but we would compel him to lie in prison from her, until his amendment might sufficiently appear. But what saith your law, concerning frigidity, concerning error in the condition of the person, as if she marry a man which is bond, whom she supposed to have been free etc. Doth not your law allow divorcements perpetual in such cases? But where I wish that adulterers might be punished with death, first he quarelleth, as though I held that the judicial law were still to be observed: as though it be not free in such points, as it is convenient for other common wealths to receive it, albeit, it is not necessary. Secondly he holdeth that a man was not punished by death, if he sinned against his wife with a single woman. Where as the case is expressly of a single man, lying with another ' man's wife, or of one that was betrothed to another man, which must needs be all one, of a married man lying with a single woman. levit. 20. and Deut. 22. And yet he noteth mine ignorance of the law: because I charge the Papists to allow dispensation for such persons to marry, as the law of God and nature abhorreth. Then he asketh me, what law of God do I mean? but Leu. 18? and whether I think that law to bind Christians? Yea verily, for the sense of nature abhorreth all those forbidden conjunctions. What else moved the heathen Romans to make laws even of the same? But Bristol bringeth in God's dispensation in the old Testament, which is false: for after the propagation of mankind, for which it was of necessity allowed, it can never be proved that God allowed any one of those marriages forbidden. 18.  
But the Pope dispenseth not only with marrying of the brother's wife in affinity, but even with the Uncle to marry his Niece, in consanguinity, as we see in the marriage of King Philippe of Spain in our days.  
The 14. after such ignorance in God's law discovered, Bristol marveleth not if I be ignorant in the Popish Church's law and divinity, in making it a certain thing, that the Pope giveth his pardons by the sacrament of penance. Athough it be no great shame for me to profess mine ignorance in many of the pope's laws & some part of his divinity: yet herein Bristol doth me wrong, to charge me to say absolutely, that the Pope giveth his pardons by the sacrament of penance. As though the Pope being at Rome, might minister a sacrament to one in England. And that so great a D. doth not trow that the power of binding and losing is exercised many other ways besides that sacrament. Seeing the Master of the sentences comprehendeth under the title of the sacrament of penance, all that power or what soever he can inquire or define of it Lib. 4. Dist. 14. 15. 16. 17. But if sins may be forgiven in popery without repentance, & that the Pope's pardons require no repentance in them that should take the benefit of them, it is one point of popery that I am content to confess that I have learned of Bristol.  
The 15. point is, that I am ignorant in our own divinity, because I wonder that a Papist should say, that God sometime punisheth sin with sin, and complain that when we say, but half somuch, they charged us to make God the auctor of sin. For Bristol asketh, if it be not a common position & large discourses upon it in our master's books, that God is the author of sin? O impudent and malicious liar, hast thou read those books of Caluine Insti. lib. 1. cap. 17. 18. & Melancthon. ad Rom. which thou quotest, and darest thou for shame of the world, if thou have no fear of God, to charge them with holding such a blasphemous position, when they in the same books do refute it, as an horrible slander which they never thought of: but always affirmed that God as a righteous judge, not as an evil author joseth Satan, and useth his ministery for the punishment of sin & sinners, and for the trial and amendment of his children as in David & job? As for those blasphemies that God worketh sin in us by himself, willing, appointing, and predestinating us to sin, no less than he, which leadeth a blind man out of his way etc. are nothing else but Bristow'S lies & slanders always detested of those godly writers, & of all them that truly profess and embrace the Gospel.  
The 16. point is of mine ignorance in histories ecclesiastical, as of the celebration of Easter by the Britons and Grecians, noted before and answered. Secondly because I say (as it seemeth) that julianus the Apostata was Emperor after Valens the Arrian. Surely where I learned that he was a persecutor of the Church, I might have learned the time of his Emipre, that he was next to Constantius, & after him jovianus, Valentinianus, & Valens, & sure I am that I learned it out of Carrions Chronicle 30. years ago. Which being so vulgar a matter, I thought none had been so malicious to charge me with ignorance thereof. But indeed he chargeth me very injuriously, for when I say after that when julianus the Apostata was Emperor, I mean to show how persecution and Gentility was restored after that Constantine had given peace, beside the trouble of heresy which was in the time of Constantius and Constans, to whom I joined Valens, as agreeing in that same heresy of Arrianisme. Again where I said, the new Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue at the Emperor's charges, for the increase of Christian faith among them: Bristol asketh me, what Emperor, or what faith, but Catholic or Popish? That which I said of the Syrian Testament, was to show that the Churches in Chaldea have preserved the scriptures, which yet are not subject to the Church of Rome; with the Emperor's profession I dealt not, but his purpose I suppose, was to increase Christian faith, and I am persuaded the reading of the scriptures in the mother tongue will not increase Popish faith, seeing Papists are so unwilling, that the people should read the word of God in the native language.  
Fourthly that I say the father's alleging the succession of Bishops against heretics, specially named the Church of Rome, because those heretics for the most part had been sometimes of the Church of Rome, as Valentinus, Martion, Novatus. Against this Bristol telleth me, that Allen speaketh also of the Arrians, Donatists, and all heretics. But I spoke of those fathers, that alleged the succession of Bishops, namely Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. Irenaeus testifieth of Valentinus, Cerdon and Martion, that they were at Rome under Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, and that Cerdon came often into the Church and made his confession, and yet taught his heresy privily and was excommunicated. For Novatus that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome, Eusebius is clear. Lib. 6. Cap. 42. But Cyprian calleth him Novatianus, whereas Novatus had been of Carthage, but from thence was also gone to Rome. I deny not but the similitude of the names might cause the Greek writers to be deceived, as Bristol saith, and it may be that the name of Novatianus in Cyprian is corrupted for Novatus, and the other called Novatus in stead of Navatus, which name was then in use. But seeing the person of the heretic is certain, it is folly to strive for his name, I have showed mine author for Novatus 〈◊〉 Rome, and so for the rest: wherefore I have not bewrayed any ignorance therein, as Bristol pretendeth.  
The 17. and last point of mine ignorance is, where I show, wherein the communion of saints consisteth: In that I say, one can not merit for an other, no not for himself, but every man hath his worthiness of Christ. As though (saith Bristol) neither Christ could merit for any other, no nor for himself, because he had his worthiness of God. But I say that Christ, because he was God, had his worthiness of himself, and therefore did merit for us. And see what secret blasphemy is contained in this comparison of Bristol: Where he would make a similitude of meriting between us which please not God, but only through his mercy; with Christ, who satisfied the justice of God. But Bristol chargeth me so to define the communion of Saints, that I allow no place for the prayers of the members alive, made for others that are alive. A vile slander, when I speak of the grace and gifts of God, which as every one hath received of God, so of charity he is bound to employ the same to the profit of his fellow members here on earth. But if we be bound of charity to pray one for an other (saith Bristol) why are not these members in heaven as well? Because there is not a law appointed for them that are in heaven, and them that be in earth, we know prayer is commanded us, we know not any prayer commanded them: neither are we to trust to any such thing. But the Scripture saith, that Christ's friends do rejoice in heaven with his penitents in earth, It saith so in deed of the Angels, and I doubt not of the like affection of the blessed spirits, but of their knowledge: and if their knowledge were certain, yet it followeth not, that they pray for the conversion of sinners: and much less that the mutual offices of love, whereby one member hath compassion with an other, can by any means touch the state of the dead, to receive any benefit thereby. But an other quarrel is, where I make the communion of the whole body, to be the participation of life from Christ the head. If this be all (saith Bristol) then there is no communion. For what communion were it between the members of your natural body, if they did only receive life from your head, and could not use the said life to profit one an other? etc. This man hath great leisure to trifle without any matter. Who so shall read my words, Pur. 199. which he quoteth, shall find me to say, That the communion of the whole body, is the participation of life, and all other offices of life that every member and the whole body hath of the head, as S. Paul teacheth plainly. Ephes 4. If it be any office of a Christian life, for one member to assist an other in that it may, and as it ought, I have comprehended it, but that Bristol doth wilfully hold my saying, and then play with it at his pleasure. Yet he chargeth me with belying of Allen: that he will have other works & ways of salvation, beside the blood of Christ, because he groundeth all works and ways of salvation in the blood of Christ. But I reporting his words truly, by plain distribution do gather, that Allen will have other works and ways of salvation beside the blood of Christ: except you will say, that is no way nor work of salvation of itself, without these ways and works of men. If the blood of Christ of itself be one way and work of salvation: and there be other ways and works, though grounded in it, then are there more ways and works of salvation, than the only redemption of Christ, which I understand by the blood of Christ, so I have done Allen no injury, but he hath offered heinous injury to the blood of Christ, and so do all they which mixed it with any to purchase God's favour, who is reconciled by none other merit or satisfaction, but only by the blood of the cross of his Son our Lord jesus Christ, to whom be praise for ever more.  
In the thirtienth chapter or conclusion, Bristol doth only show, that there is in my two books stuff enough to make an other book as big as this, to the discredit of my party. I trust this book of his, as big as it is, hath wrought no discredit to the cause I maintain, because I have showed how it is stuffed with lies, slanders, falsifications, and cavillations; such stuff he may have great store in the devil his masters school, to make a book ten times as big as this was: but for so much as he hath not answered any one of mine arguments, or refelled any one of mine answers to Allen, in any right order, leaving the defence of him (as he pretendeth to defend the Church, I confess he hath left matter sufficient, for any man, that will undertake the confutation of my books (which this his unorderly and unsufficient reply, notwithstanding) I protest to remain still in their strength and unanswered.   
GOD BE PRAISED.   

The cavils of Nicholas Saunder D. in Divinity, about the Supper of our Lord, and the Apology of the Church of England touching the doctrine thereof, confuted by W. Fulke Doctor in Divinity.  


MAN HV, what is this?  
The figure. Exod. 16. This is the bread which our Lord hath 
Saunder.  given, etc.  
The prophecy. Proverb. 9 Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mixed for you.  
The promise. john 6. The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.  
The performance. Matth. 26. Luke 22. He gave saying: take eat, this is my body which is given for you.  
The doctrine of the Apostles, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is the communicating of the lords body.  
The belief of the Church. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit. Both our Lord hath professed, and we believe it to be flesh in deed.  
The custom of Heretics. Tertul. de resur. car. The contrary part raiseth up trouble, by pretence of figures.   
THese notes and sentences, D. S. hath set 
Fulke.  before his book, as the pith and martowe of all his treatise. In which, as he pleaseth himself not a little, so he showeth nothing, but his ignorance, vanity, and falsehood. His ignorance in the interpretation of the Hebrew words: Man Hu, which do signify, This is a ready meat, prepared without man's labour, as even, the author of the book of Wisdom expoundeth it. Which Saunder readeth interrogatively, following the error of some old writers, which could put no difference between the Hebrew, and the Chaldee tongues. For Man in Hebrew signifieth not what, neither doth the Chaldee Paraphrase expound it so, but Manna hu, that is, This is Manna, that is to say, a ready meat. Again, he showeth himself ignorant in the Apostles doctrine, when he maketh Manna a figure of the sacrament, which the Apostle plainly affirmeth to have been the same spiritual meat, which the sacrament is to us. 1. Cor. 10. His vanity appeareth, that when he can rack never a saying of the Prophets to his purpose, he dreameth of a prophecy in the proverbs of Solomon, which book was never accounted of wise men for prophetical, but doctrinal: and this pretended prophecy is an allegorical exhortation of wisdom to embrace her doctrine, and not a prophecy of Christ instituting his sacrament: an inviting of men in salomon's time, and all times, to study wisdom, and not a foreshowing of a supper to be ordained by Christ in time to come. In the words which he allegeth, for the promise of the sacrament, is discovered a manifest falsification of the text of Scripture, to pervert the meaning of Christ, which is of his passion, unto the institution of the sacrament thereof. For the words of our Saviour Christ, joh. 6. 51. are these: And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. These last words (which I will give) Saunder hath fraudulently omitted, that this promise might seem to be referred, not unto the passion of Christ, in which he gave his flesh for the life of the world, but unto the giving of the sacrament of his flesh, in his last supper.  
In the title of performance, he omitteth to show, what Christ gave: when he said, This is my body, that he might seem to have given nothing but his body, whereas the Evangelists teach, that he broke and gave the bread, which he took, affirming it to be his body. The doctrine of the Apostles Saunder doth not hold, because he neither breaketh bread, which he denieth to be in the sacrament, nor acknowledgeth a communicating or participation of the lords body, which he alloweth to be received of the reprobate, which have no communicating or partaking with Christ. So that he denieth the sacrament, or outward sign to all men, and giveth the heavenly matter or thing signified by the sacrament, even unto wicked men. The belief of the Church which Hilary professeth, Saunder maintaineth not: for Hilary saith, that we do truly eat the flesh of the body of Christ, sub mysterio under a mystery, & per hoc unum erimus, and by this we shall be one with him and the father, which can not be understood of the Popish corporal receiving.  
Last of all, he followeth the custom of heretics, which is to draw men's sayings inio a wrong meaning, for Tertullian in the place by him alleged, speaketh not of such heretics, as pretended a figure in the sacrament, where none should be acknowledged, but he himself, by that the bread is a figure of the body of Christ, proveth against Martion the heretic, that Christ had a true body. ad Marc. lib. 4.  

To the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ, under the 
Saunder.  forms of bread and wine, all honour, praise, and thanks be given for ever.  
I Can not tell whether I should complain more of the 
Fulke.  vanity, or blasphemy of this dedicatory Epistle: the form whereof being so new and strange, that the like was never heard of in the Church of Christ, every word almost containeth a great and gross heresy. For not content to make the sacrament the very natural body and blood of Christ, he maketh it the very essential deity itself. For unto whom is all honour and glory dew, but unto God himself? Again, seeing he joineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise, by this form of greeting he doth either exclude them; or if he will comprehend them, for that inseparable unity which they have with the godhead of Christ, he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresy, that God the father and God the holy Ghost, is with the body and blood of Christ, under the forms of bread and wine. Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians, which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgin Marie, and was crucified as well as God the Son. Even so Saunder by this blasphemous and heretical epistle, if he deny not honour, glory, power, and presence every where unto the Father, and the holy Ghost, yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Son, and God the Son with his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine. For thus he writeth: I adore thee my God and Lord, really present under the forms of bread and wine. To which also he saith: And to whom should I refer the praise and thanks for it, but unto thee alone? Or of whom should I crave the protection thereof, but of thee? seeing thou only art a meet patron for the defence of any book, which only art always present, wheresoever and whensoever it shall be examined. To the honour therefore of thy body and blood, I offer this poor mite etc.  
By these words you see, that Saunder acknowledgeth no GOD, nor Lord, but him that is really present under the forms of bread and wine: except he acknowledge more Gods and Lords than one. And consequently, that either he acknowledgeth not God the Father, and God the holy Ghost, or else he acknowledgeth him present under the forms of bread and wine, without distinction of persons, and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speeches can not help him in this case, seeing he will admit no figure, but a most proper speech in these words: This is my body. Whereas it is evident to all men, that are not obstinately blind, that if Christ had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that himself is, and would have declared the same in proper speech, he would not have said: This is my body, and this is my blood, which is but a part of him, and the lowest part of him; but he would have said, take, eat, this is jesus Christ, or this is all that I am. But when he saith: this is my body, & this is my blood (which if it be not a figurative speech, should be a dead body and a senseless blood) he showeth manifestly, that he commendeth not a meta physical transmutation of the elements into his natural flesh and blood: but an heavenly and divine mystery, teaching us and assuring us that God the son being joined with us in the nature of his humanity, which he hath taken unto him, by the spiritual virtue of his body broken and blood shed for us on the cross, doth wonderfully feed us and nourish us, as it were with meat and drink, unto eternal salvation, both of body and soul. If any man think that I refer the words of Saunder, to the Sacrament, which he speaketh of the divinity of Christ generally, let him read the whole Epistle, and comparing it with the title of salutation which I have set down in his own words, consider whether Saunder, professing that he speaketh therein to the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, can be reasonably understood of Christ, after any other sort then under the forms of bread and wine. Wherefore such bold speeches as he useth in this dedication, tending to so gross heresy, were a declaration of his proud stomach, now broken forth into heinous treason against his own country, and actual rebellion against his sovereign and natural Prince.  
But thou O Lord jesus Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer, whom we adore and worship, as our King and God, not under the accidental shapes of bread and wine, but above all principalities and powers, sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternal father in heaven, to whom with thee and the holy Ghost, we give all honour & praise for ever, vouchsafe (if it be thy holy will) to convert these enemies of thy majesty, unto the true understanding of thy blessed word, or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit, so require, show forth thy glorious might in their speedy overthrow and confusion, that we thy humble servants, beholding thy wonderful judgements, may laud and magnify thy holy name, as well in the salvation of thine elect, as in the destruction of thine enemies, to thine everlasting praise and renown for ever and ever.  
Amen.  

The preface to the Christian reader. 
Saunder.   
THe proposition of this painted preface, is that the scriptures 
Fulke.  must be expounded according to the greatest authority that may be found in that kind, which Saunder assumeth to be the use, custom and practice of the Catholic Church. This assumption is false, although if it were true, it helpeth the Papists nothing at all, which can not show the practice of the Catholic Church of all times, for any error, which they maintain against us. The greatest authority in expounding of the scriptures, is of the holy Ghost, whose iudgemenr can not be certainly found, but in the scriptures themselves: wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God, is of greater authority than the practice of men. The scriptures inspired of God, are able to make us wise unto salvation, they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good works. 2. Tim. 3. Wherefore the practice and custom of God's people, must be examined by the scriptures, and not the scriptures expounded after it. Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith. Rom. 12. But faith is builded upon the word of God, and not upon the custom of men: therefore exposition of the scriptures, must be according to the word of God, and not after the usage of men.  
The example which Saunder useth, to confirm his false assumption, is of baptizing of infants of Christians, before they be taught, which doctrine he denieth to be proved by the order of Christ's words, Matth. 28. but by the use and consent of all nations. To this I answer, that the use and consent of all nations, were not sufficient to warrant the baptism of infants of the faithful, except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places: As is manifest in the institution of circumcision. According to the covenant whereof, the Apostle saith, that all our fathers were baptised in the cloud and in the sea, 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithful are holy, therefore to be admitted to baptism, 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in God's covenant, according to which scriptures they are baptised, & the infants of jews or Gentiles refused, and not only upon the ground of the Church's custom and use therein (as Saunder affirmeth,) which custom is good, because it is grounded upon the Scriptures, but the scripture is not authorized by that custom. Wherefore popish confirmation, and adoration of the body of Christ in the sacrament, (although he falsely affirmeth, that they are the like custom of the Catholic Church) be lewd and ungodly practices of the Papists, because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures, but are proved contrary to the same.  
But whereas we allege the judgement of the fathers of the Church, for six hundred years after Christ, to be against transubstantiation and adoration: Saunder replieth, that things uncertain, must be judged by things certain, and not contrariwise. This principle is true: but it is false, that the judgement of the fathers in the first six hundred years is uncertain: as also, that those four certainties which he rehearseth, be either all certainties, or certainly on his side. The first is the words of the scripture, This is my body: about whose understanding is all the controversy, and therefore no certainty that they are on their side, more than these words are certain on our side against transubstantiation. The bread which we break, etc. so often as ye eat of this bread, etc. The second is false, that in the Catholic church, all men worshipped the real body of Christ under the forms of bread, etc. for it is the practice only of the Popish Church, and that but of late years, never admitted by the Oriental churches, beside many churches and members of Christ's Church in the West, that ever did abhor it. Thirdly, the Council of Laterane, kept 350. years past, was no general Council of all that profess Christianity, but only of the Papists: no more was any that followed, at Constance, Basil, Trent, nor yet that of Florence, in which, although there were some Grecians, yet the council of Basil, was against it, and many Oriental Churches, that were never called to it, neither was there any thing for transubstantiation, or adoration, therein agreed by the Grecians, that were there.  
For in the last session it is thus recorded: Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis, summus pontifex petiit, ut de divina panis transmutatione, quae quidem quarta quaestis fui● in Synodo, ageretur. At Graeci dixerunt, se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae▪ ●auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse, cùm pro illa tant●m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus convocata fuerit. Which four questions, being dissolved, the Pope desired, that of the divine transmutation of the bread, which was the fourth matter in controversy, it might be treated in the synod. But the Grecians said, that they without the authority of the whole Oriental▪ Church could handle none other question, seeing the synod was called together, for that only question, of the proceeding of the holy Ghost.  
Fourthly, although Berengarius, was condemned by three Popish counsels, and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretic, yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures, and the judgement of all the ancient Church, for six hundred years and more, after Christ, and was also received by divers learned preachers in his time, the same being now taught in England, is true doctrine, and no heresy. Wherefore, none of the four certainties, are certain and true on Sanders side. But he will examine us, what Gospel, what Church, what councils we have.  
First he saith we can bring no Gospel, where it is written, This is the figure of my body: Neither do we affirm, that it is only a figure of his body, nor deny that it is his body, after a certain manner, as Augustine saith. And Saunder will not deny, but that it is a figure, which were not true, except it were proved out of the Gospel, which speaking of the Cup, saith: This is the new Testament in my blood. And what Gospel doth Saunder bring? saying, This bread is turned into my body.  
To the second demand, I answer: The primitive Church, for six hundred years, did believe of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, as we do, during which time, as there was no controversy, so there needed no general Council to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine.  
As there are many other articles agreed on both parts, which were never decreed in general Counsels: because there never was question about them. But when the question did arise, it was in the time of the prophesied defection, from Christ unto Antichrist, and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed, so that no general Council could be gathered about it, neither yet can, by means of the civil dissension between Princes that profess Christ, and the tyranny of heathen Princes, which hold many parts of the Church in miserable captivity and slavery.  
But the first six hundred years (saith Saunder) make not for the Sacraments, which is declared invincibly, by three means: First, diverse fathers require us instantly to believe these words, This is my body, etc. although they seem to be against natural reason and sense. And yet no wise man will require us to believe figurative words.  
O shameless and senseless heretic! will not every wise man require us to believe all the figurative words of holy Scripture? Are not these words true, although they be contrary to natural reason & sense? The rock was Christ, I am the true vine, I am the door, & c? and if these words are true, are they not to be believed of us, in their true meaning? even so these words: This is my body: are true in their meaning, and therefore credit is worthily required to be given unto them. The second reason is, that the same fathers teach expressly, that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries, which is a loud lie, understanding it of popish adoration. The third reason is, because the fathers teach, that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ, in the worthy receiving of the blessed sacrament. But this is false: for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a sign, of our natural and corporal conjunction with Christ, which is by his incarnation: for our conjunction by the sacrament, is neither natural, nor corporal, but spiritual unto the body and blood of Christ crucified for us. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding, the six hundred years make still for us. Yet can we not assure ourselves of the first six hundred years (sayeth Saunder) by the writings of the fathers of those times, because none of them goeth about to prove, that the body of Christ is not under that, which the Priest blesseth, etc. or warned the people to beware of idolatry, or have used such words, as the Sacramentaries do now use. If Saunder had not in him more impudency than learning, he would not reason from authority negatively, although his negatives are not all true. For some of the old writers deny in express words, the sacrament to be the very body of Christ: Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatry in worshipping the sacrament, it argueth, that none in their time did worship it, seeing you Papists confess, that idolatry may be committed in worshipping the Mass cake, if it be not consecrated, and therefore teach men to worship it, with this condition, when they see it, if it be consecrated. Such words as the fathers used in explication of the mystery, we● use when we teach, that it is a figure, a token, a representation, a signification, a similitude, a symbol, a type of the body and blood of Christ; and what words soever we use, we utter none contrary to their meaning, and teaching, of the holy sacrament. But (saith Saunder) that they call the sacrament a figure or holy sign, it hindereth not the real presence, because signs instituted by Christ, have real truth in every sacrament. Neither do we say the contrary, but that the real truth of Christ's body, is given unto us in the sacrament of the supper, even as the holy Ghost is given us in the sacrament of baptism, and yet we deny the bread which is the sign, to be turned into the natural body of Christ, even as we deny the water, which is likewise the sign, to be converted into the substance of the holy Ghost. But the fathers (saith Saunder) are not against the doctrine of the Papists, because no Papist findeth fault with them. By the same reason, he might prove, that none of the jury which have found a thief guilty, did go against him, because the thief challenged none of them. And yet Gardener & others challenge Theodoret & Gelasius. Again he saith, The fathers are against the Protestants, because they excuse Hilary, Chrysost. cyril, by the figure of Hyperbole, which is a Rhetorical lie, but in deed, this argument is a lewd lie, of one which knoweth neither Logic, nor Rhetoric, but like a young smatterer, or a sophistical caviller. For the figure of Hyperbole, is not a lie, more than any other figure of Rhetoric, in the true understanding thereof, whereas after wrong understanding, even that which is spoken without all figure, is false, and untrue. Finally, whereas he chargeth us to deny the works of the ancient writers, Dionysius, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Abdias etc. that is a loud lie, shadowed neither with Rhetoric nor reason: for we deny not the works of those fathers, but we refuse counterfeit works falsely ascribed to them, which thing if we prove not by manifest demonstration, we require no credit. As for that which he cavilleth against master Nowell, I omit, as being confuted by master Nowell himself. But where he sayeth, the scriptures would never abide him, that should say: This is not my body: I answer, we never say: This is not Christ's body, after any manner: but this is not his body after a gross, carnal, or natural manner, and that saying the scripture will abide, even as well as this, The rock was not Christ, naturally, substantially, or essentially, although the scripture say, The rock was Christ. Or this: Christ was not a vine, properly, naturally, or substantially, notwithstanding, that he sayeth: I am a very or true vine. The proud brag which Saunder maketh, that popish Catholics lack no scripture, for any of their assertions, how true it is, let all men judge: seeing that for many things they confess they have nothing to show, but tradition unwritten. Likewise, how aptly in this controversy of the supper, he hath examined the words of Christ's supper, noted the circumstances of things done and said there, conferred the scriptures of both the testaments, and joined the fathers of the first six hundred years. And yet he favoureth himself so much in his doing, that he boldly affirmeth us to have no help of those things. For scriptures we cannot confer, to make the words of the supper plain, because Doing, and the words thereof, are more plain than any other place of scripture, concerning it, as the passion of Christ is more plain, than the law and Prophets. etc. If this were true, the Apostles laboured in vain, to prove the passion of Christ, out of the law and the Prophets, and the rest of the writings of the Apostles, are needless, and uncertain instruction, if the history of the passion, doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be known, concerning it. But it is a clerkly conclusion of Saunder: That if the words of the supper be figurative, none other can be plain: as though figurative speeches, cannot be plain, when they are used for plainness sake, of them that know how to use them. And because Saunder chargeth us, Tell me masters etc.: I say likewise: Tell me masters, Are these words recorded, to be spoken in the institution & action of the supper? This is the new Testament in my blood. Tell me I say, are these the very words which Christ then spoke, or the interpretation of them? If they be the very words, which of you will say, they are not figarative? If they be the interpretation, then are they more clear & plain, than those words which he uttered: This is my blood. Now whether the judgement of the primitive Church, for the first 600. years maketh for us, as it hath in many treatises, so in this that followeth, it shallbe showed sufficiently. Last of all, it will appear, both by the scriptures, and testimony of the fathers, that the judgement of the external senses, or natural reason, was not the first argument that might move them that first departed from antichristianity, to the ancient & true understanding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper. Of the almighty power of Christ we doubt no more, then of his will revealed in scriptures, in which seeing we learn, that Christ concerning his humanity, was made like us in all things, except sin: and that our bodies, after the resurrection, shall be made like to his glorious body, Heb. 2 for 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation, we may not reason of his power so, that we should overthrow his wil For he is almighty to do whatsoever, he will, & not willing to do whatsoever he can. But of the whole matter, we shall entreat more at large, as occasion is given, in the books following.    

CAP. II.  
Certain notes about the use, and translation of holy scripture, 
Saunder.  to be remembered of him, that shall read this book.  
Saunder, professing that he followeth most, the vulgar 
Fulke.  Latin translation, and lest the English Bible, because it almost never translateth any text well, whereof any controversy is in these our days, taketh in hand to prove, many falsifications and wrong translations, in the only matter of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. The first is john the 6. ver. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Operamini cibum permanentem, The true English were: work the meat which carrieth. The English bible turneth: Operamini, labour for. We labour (saith he) for that which we seek, and 〈◊〉 not; we work that stuff, which is present with us. This corruption the Sacramentaries have used, because they do not believe the meat which tarrieth to be made really present, so that we may work it by faith and body. This final cause is falsely alleged, for we believe the meat that tarrieth unto eternal life, to be made really present by faith, to them that receive the sacrament worthily. Contrariwise, the papists hold, that the same meat is received, where it tarrieth not unto etetnall life, namely in the wicked. And concerning the corruption pretended, it is false: which Saunder saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth always to work, that which is present, and not to labour or seek for that which is absent: for saint Paul writeth, 2. Thessa. 3. ver. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Si quis non vult operar●: If any man will not labour, neither let him eat. Every man cannot work that stuff which is present, as in Sanders example of a Carpenter, working a piece of timber, therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to labour generally, either in seeking that which is absent, or in working that which is present. Wherefore this is a doltish distinction of doctor Saunder, and a manifest corruption of the text, by leaving out such words as show the vanity of this cavil, and overthrow the difference of this distinction: For the words of Christ are these, speaking to the jews which sought him being absent, not because they saw his miracles, but because they had been filled with his bread. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Labour ye, not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is but once set down, which must be referred as well to the meat which perisheth, as to the meat which tarrieth; but being applied to the meat which perisheth, it cannot be turned, Work not the mere which perisheth, as stuff that is present, but Labour not or seek not for it (as you do) which is absent, therefore it must be so turned, as it may serve for both. And where as Saunder saith, that this meat is not laboured for, because it is not sought out by our diligence, but given by Christ: it is a fonder reason, except you will say that we must not labour for any good things, because all good things are the gifts of God. Finally, that you may see what a singular quarreling, & vain glorious person he is, to seek a knot in a rush, you shall understand that the papists themselves translate this place even as the great bible doth: namely Heskins, as well learned a Papist as Saunder: lib. 2. Cap. 2. of his popish Parliament.  
The second text which he pretendeth to be falsified, is ver. 57 of the same chapter: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui manducat me, & ipse vivet propter me. The true English is, He that eateth me, he shall also live for me. The english bible readeth, he that eateth me, shall live by the means of me. The best colour of his cavil, is that propter patrem, is translated in the same ver. For the father. Howbeit, seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or propter, signifieth the efficient cause, there is no fraud in turning it, By the means of me, which is the same that is meant by, For me: and as I think was so turned by the translators, to show that, For the father, includeth not the final cause, as it might seem, but the eternal efficient cause of life. As for the cavillation, that a man may live by means of him, which is absent, is altogether childish and ridiculous: for who can understand him to be absent, which is eaten? The controversy is not of the presence: but of the manner of the presence. But how can the Papists digest this saying of Christ? He that eateth me, shall live by me, or for me, when they affirm that wicked men eat him, which live not by him, for this is generally true of all that eat him, and not to be restrained to them that eat him worthily. For the Sacrament in deed, may be eaten unworthily, but Christ himself, is not eaten, but where he giveth life.  
The 3. corruption observed by Saunder, is vers. 58. of john. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum: The true English were, He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. The Bible doth english it, He that eateth of this bread. The adding of this word, Of▪ may be the Printers fault: for many translations read without Of. But seeing Saunder confesseth it is a true saying, he that eateth of this bread, used by Christ before, verse 51. here can be no corruption, or falsification proved. As for the distinction, which Saunder maketh, between, eating Christ, and eating of Christ, eating his flesh, and eating of his flesh, is frivolous and vain: for none eat of him, but they which eat him. Yes (saith he,) Of him we may eat, without the Sacrament, but himself we properly eat, only under the form of bread. How untrue this is, you may see by this argument: None can have eternal life, except they eat Christ and the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood: But many have eternal life, which eat not the Sacrament: Therefore many eat Christ, and the flesh of Christ, which eat not the Sacrament. joan. 6. ver. 53. & 57  
The 4. falsification is, in S. Matth. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cùm accepisset jesus panem, & gratias egisset, fregit, & dedit discipulis, & ait. The true English is, jesus having taken bread, and given thanks (or blessed) broke and gave to the disciples, and said. The common Bible readeth: jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave i● to the disciples. The holy scripture saith not, that jesus broke it, neither that he gave it, but that he broke and gave. Again in saint Mark saint Luke, and saint Paul, five times putting the particle (it) which is neither in the Greek, nor in the Latin Bible. Who would think, that an ancient man would play the boy so kindly? What say you Saunder, is not the particle (it) added, neither in Greek nor Latin? When the accusative case is once set down, and then follow transitive verbs, is it the phrase of the Greek or Latin tongue, to add the particle it? You say he broke and gave, but not broke it, nor gave it. Will you teach us a new Grammar, that fregit and dedit be verbs neuter absolute? Or if you will say they be verbs active transitives, lest the wild Irish boys, that go to the Grammar school, should hiss at you, as you go about your popish and traitorous commission, I would wish some young Redshank lad to oppose you, and ask you, what he broke, and what he gave? If he broke not and gave not it, which he took. If you say, he broke his body, and not the bread, because you say, he so gave his body, that he gave no bread, advise yourself, how you will answer the breaking of Christ's body, which was but once broken for us on the cross, but yet not broken into several pieces, as that thing, whatsoever you will call it, was broken which he gave to his disciples. And this undoubtedly you mean, when you say, The words of saint Matthew, do not all stand in order, in so much as Christ said: the words of consecration, before he broke the sacrament, or gave to his disciples. And do you now complain of Saint Matthew for disordering the words? Verily saint Mark, saint Luke, and saint Paul, place the words in such sort as saint Matthew doth. And if all these Evangelists, and Apostles, do set the words out of order, whence come you, that will take upon you to set them in order? Have you other places of scripture to prove this pretended inversion of order? And if you had, have you forgotten, what you did write even now in the preface; that if there be any obscurity found in the words of the supper, there is no other part of scripture that can clear them? But standing of the words out of order, and that in every one that rehearseth them, must needs make uncertainty and obscurity, yea this standing, or not standing out of order, may decide a great part of the controversy: for if the words were spoken after he broke and gave, than he broke and gave bread. And seeing the placing of the words in all the Evangelists, and saint Paul favour this opinion, you shall not easily prove the contrary against so many faithful and prudent witnesses, which had a care to place the words in such order, as they should give no manifest occasion of heresy by disordering them.  
The fift corruption is in saint Luke 22. and Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 11, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc facite, the truest English were, make this thing. The fullest, do and make this thing. The common Bible readeth, in Saint Luke, this do. In saint Paul, This do ye. And that which is most abominable of all, in the homily of the sacrament, it is translated, do ye thus. This great abomination, if in any book it be so found, is but the Printers fault, although in sense there be no great difference. But seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and facere signifieth to do, as well as to make, what corruption or falsification can there be when it is translated To do? As for Sanders fullest translation, by doing, and making, is most absurd. For when a word hath two significations, no wise translator will render them both, but only that, which is most proper for the place, and doing is here more proper than making. For though it sound not absurdly, in Sanders blasphemous ears, when he saith: do this, is all one as if he had said, make this my body: yet that the body of Christ should be properly said to be made, by men, which was once made in the womb of the virgin, by the holy ghost, in all godly men's minds, it is both absurd and blasphemous. And that the word facite, is to be translated by doing, and not by making, it is evident by this, that S. Paul referreth it to the whole action of the supper, 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. This do, as often as you shall drink it, in my remembrance: etc. So doth S. Cyrpian manifestly lib. 2. Ep. 3. Caecilio. Quòd si & à domino praecipitur, & ab apostolo eius hoc idem confirmatur & traditur, ut quoties●unque biberimus, in commemorationem domini, hoc faciamus, quod facit & dominus, invenimur non observari à nobi● quod mandatum est, nisi eadem quae dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus: Et calicem pari ratione miscentes, à divino magisterio non recedamus. If then it be commanded by the Lord, & the same thing is confirmed and delivered by his Apostle, that so often as we drink, we should do this thing in remembrance of our Lord, which our Lord himself did, we are found that we do not observe that which is commanded, except we also do the same things which our Lord did. And ministering the cup after the same manner, we depart not from his divine teaching. Last of all Heskins the papist, and other likewise before this Momus translate it as we do. Hesk. lib. 2. ca 42 Where he cavileth that our translation omitteth the word Thing, it is without all shadow of reason, for by This, what can be understood, but, this thing? And seeing our English Pronown This, doth aptly answer the Greek pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what need is it to add the word, Thing, which is not expressed either in the Greek or in the Latin?  
The sixth falsification is affirmed to be in S. Luke, and Saint Paul Luke, 22. 1. Corinth. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In meam commemorationem. The true English were, For the remembrance of me, or To the end I may be remembered. The common bible turneth, in the remembrance of me. A strange quarrel, if a man could understand it. A thing (saith he) may be done best in the remembrance of a man, when the man is first remembered, and afterward the thing is done in the remembrance of him. And may not a man be first remembered and afterward a thing done for the remembrance of him? Or would Saunder, that Christ should not be thought upon, before he see the Mass cake lifted up, which he saith is made for the remembrance of him? For thus he fantasieth that Christ should say: When my body is made by the priest, and lifted up to be adored, and all the people taught to bow down to the body of Christ, and to come with pure conscience to receive it, than Christ is remembered, by reason of his body made: and so the scripture is fulfilled which saith, do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. If this be the fulfilling of the scripture, than was it not fulfilled for more than a thousand years after Christ, until elevation and adoration of the sacrament were decreed. And then is it not fulfilled in any private Mass, where none of the people receive, nor yet be taught to receive it. Where he saith, that Christ can not be remembered by eating of bread & drinking of wine, as the Sacramentaries would have it, so effectually, and with such contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as he requireth, but by following of his cross and death, by penance, by humility, by confessing our fins to his ministers, and taking absolution of them: I answer, the Protestants require not only eating and drinking, but preaching of the Lords death, repentance, faith, love, and reverence in the receivers: as for the rest of popish trumpery, when he can show that Christ required, or the apostles used, we will gladly admit it. In the mean time let the reader's judge, how this later kind of remembrance, can be learned out of the former, which I have set down in his own words, of making, lifting, adoring, etc.  
Beside these great corruptions, there are other two small faults, in S. Paul. The first, 1. Cor. 10. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned, the partaking, where it should be, the communicating of the body & blood of Christ. This he counteth a lesser fault, because the Catholic Latin translation, in one place calleth it participatio, a partaking: which is (saith he) when part of a thing is taken, and not the whole. I think the translator used the word of partaking, because it is better known to English men, than the term of communicating: Especially, seeing the Apostle useth both terms indifferently, as one. For in the next verse, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The vulgar Latin is, Omnes qui de uno pane participamus: All we which do partake of one bread: And speaking of them which did eat the Sacrifices of Israelites, of which, every one did not eat the whole, he said they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, communicators of the altar. And them that take part of the sacrifice of the Gentiles, he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, communicators with devils. And returning to the Christians, he sayeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. Wherefore in that translation, there is neither falsification, nor corruption, great or small. The last fault is, 1. Cor. 10. in the place by me cited: we all partake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which should Englished of the one bread. For such strength hath the Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & sometime the common bible turneth the Greek article into That. What say you, Saunder, hath the Greek article such strength always? If you say so, you will be thought to be a simple Grecian. If only sometimes, you must show better reason than you do, why it hath such strength here, or else the English translation is good enough. For by the outward sign which is the partaking of one bread, the Apostle proveth the spiritual conjunction of all the faithful in one body, and useth not the name of bread siguratively, for that which Christ calleth the bread of life, etc. And unto this translation, agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying: The gift that is offered pertaineth to all the people, quia in uno pane omnes significantur: per id quod enim unum simus de uno pane nos omnes sumere oportet: because in one bread they are all signified: for in that we are one, we ought to receive all of one bread. Of the same judgement is Hierom upon the very place, saying: Omnes quidem de uno pane, & de uno calice participamus. We all partake of one bread & of one cup. The like is Chrysost. & all the old writers in a manner. You see what shameless cavilling, & racking he useth, to make a show of corruption in the English Bible, against which his malice is so great, that he chargeth not the translators, but the English Bible to have turned, to have falsified, to have corrupted, as though that if there were any just fault to be found in the translation, the English Bible should bear the blame for it, and be despised of all English men. God be thanked, that although it may not be denied, but some faults have and may escape the best translations, yet the translators have a clear conscience from falsifying, and corrupting, and the faults are not so great, that any pernicious error may be grounded on them, nor so many by a thousand parts as are in that Latin translation, which the Papists admit, as only Catholic & authentical.   

CAP. III.  
The state of the question between the Lutherans, zwinglians, 
Saunder.  Caluini●●es, & Catholics, concerning the Sacrament of the altar.  
This Chapter containeth no proof of any thing, but only setteth down the bare assertions of Saunder, 
●ulke.  upon every matter, which if they be false, it shall be as easy for me to deny, as for him to affirm them, referring the trial of every cause as he doth, unto the treatise following. First it is false, which he affirmeth, that from the beginning of the Christian Church, unto the year of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greek and Latin openly professed the carnal presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. For the Greek church never received transubstantiation, nor yet taught so grossly of the real presence, as the Papists: nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists do. For after the words of Christ uttered in their liturgy, they pray thus unto God: Fac panem quidem hunc, honorabile corpus Christi tui, quod autem in chalice est, honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui, ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante. And make this bread, the honourable body of thy Christ, and that which is in the cup, the honourable blood of thy Christ, thy holy spirit changing them. This was objected unto them in the late Council of Florence. It is also false, that he sayeth, no man in open pulpit, with the authority or toleration of any spiritual pastor, did preach the contrary: for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer, in open pulpit preached the same, as his homilies remaining in writing, are a plain testimony, as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad. in. 6. joan. Here it is needful for men to wit, that there been two manner of meats, ghostly and bodily: but bodily is well known. But need were here to know how men should ghostly eat Christ. For no man that hath wit dreadeth, that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blood. For else no man should be saved: for no man is an etene, to seed him thus bodily of Christ, and therefore it were to wit, how men should ghostly feed them thus. For Christ telleth in his words, how men should eat him ghostly, and to this, wit saith Christ here, that the words that he speaketh to them, be spirit and life, for such is wit of his words. These words in their own kind been such as were his other words, but wit of these words there is spiritual and man's life. Also Christ saith there sooth, that each man that shall be saved, shall be fed of Christ thus. But this may not be understonden of fleshly food of Christ's body: And so it moat be understonden algates of ghostly food, for of bodily food of Christ may not two be fed together, and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food, by which many be fed far and near. Also the sermon of Aelsri● in the Saxon tongue, appointed to be said in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine. But I break promise to stand in con●●tation of so impudent lies. And where he saith a believe which had continued 600. years could not have been suddenly changed, it is very true, for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence, was not come unto full ripeness, before the Council of Laterane, which was more than 600. years after the first age of 600. years. And although the efficacy of error. prevailed by God's just judgement over a great part of the world, yet had Christ always his two witnesses, to protest against it, as Berengarius, Scotus, Waldo, Hen●icus de Gauduno, Wickliefe, etc. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretics, yet seeing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholic faith, of the primitive church, grounded on god's word, their condemnation in an hundredth counsels, can be no prejudice to the truth.  
The mean that maketh present that blessed body (sayeth Saunder) is transubstantiation, which being made present thereby, who can deny, but that it is a sacrifice above all other external kinds of worshipping, sith at the time of the consecration, it is given for us unbloodily, as the words of Christ sound, Luke 22. which is given for you. But seeing S. Paul in exposition of the same words, saith: which is broken for you, who is either so ignorant, or so blasphemous to deny, that the giving in S. Luke, is to be referred unto his death and bloody sacrifice, which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all. Again, when all the three Evangelists, speaking of the sacrament of his blood, say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is shed for many and for you, sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for us, as well as his body is given for us; who is so shameless, to say, that it is given for us unbloodily iny ᵉ sacrament? Or if the word of shedding being of the pre●●nt temps or preterimperfect temps, must be referred to the passion which was afterward; who is so mad as D. S. to refer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is, given▪ to a present giving or sacrificing?  
But proceeding in his vain purpose, he showeth, that the faults of the popish clergy advanced by transubstantiation, caused them to be contemned of the people, which contempt by God's justice stirred up Martin Luther, like a proud king of Babylon, to come out of the North, to fight against jerusalem. Can you forbear laughing? They that were carnal in the Popish Church, priests bishops to hold their livings, Abats and Monks for good pensions received this doctrine and gave up their abbeys to the Prince. But this good hath Luther done, that he separated the good from the bad, especially from the Popish votary, the married Monk and vowed Priest, which sayeth, No man ought to vow chastity, condemning thereby, not only an infinite number of virgins, but also the blessed mother of God. To this I answer, that first of all he slandereth them, which deny the vow of chastity, or rather celebrate (for every man is bound to live chastened) to be lawful, for they deny it, to be lawful only to those which are not certain, that they have the gift of continency to continue with them long as they live. And as for the vow of the virgin Mary, I pray you how proveth he that she made any? Because (saith he) she wondered how she might have a child, seeing she knew not any man. Whereunto her own reason might have replied that hereafter she might know a man, except she had vowed herself not to know at all any man. I answer, that though her reason might have so replied, for having a child, yet for having such a child, as should be the son of the highest, reason could not satisfy her, and therefore she desired to be instructed by the angel, by what means it should be, without that any vow of virginity, can be concluded in any lawful form of argument, out of this place, by any Logician in the world. But contrariwise, that she was betrothed unto a man, it is an undoubted argument, that she vowed not virginity. For if she should have made any vow before her marriage, she would not have deluded her husband, to promise her body to him, when she had determined the contrary. If they say, she vowed after marriage: it is plain by the Gospel, she did it without her husbands knowledge, and therefore her vow could not be lawful. For before joseph was instructed by the Angel of her case, his purpose was to have taken her home to him, and used her as his wife, until she was perceived to be with child, and then he would have privily forsaken her.  
After this he showeth what were the opinions of Luther, Zwinglius and Caluine, which he maketh to be three, in number, when by the consent of the Churches of Helvetia & Sabandia it is manifest, that the judgement of Zwinglius and Caluine, concerning the manner of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of his supper, was all one. Now concerning that Caluine willeth us to go into heaven by faith, there to feed of Christ spiritually: Saunder liketh it not, because our nature not being able to climme up to the seat of God in heaven, the son of God came down to us, to life us up into heaven, in taking upon him our humane nature. So when our faith called for Christ to come from heaven to help us, he let down the cord of his humanity, and of his flesh and blood. And shall we now, when it is let down to be fastened in our bodies, and in the bottom of our hearts, by eating it really, shall we now refuse it, and say, we will go into heaven by faith ourselves, and there take hold of Christ, whereby we may be delivered out of the deep vale of misery? As though the cord should have needed to have been let down, if we could have fastened our bodies to anything in heaven, and ye● our bodies are they which weigh down our souls chiefly. In deed, if the son of God, had not come down unto us, and joined our nature unto his, the anchor of our faith, could have had no hold in heaven. But seeing the son of God did not only come down unto us, but also is ascended from the earth, and hath carried us up into heaven with him, Eph. 2. ver. 6. he letteth no more down unto us the cord of his humanity, but we cast up the sure anchor of our souls, which is faith, entering into the inward part of that spiritual tabernacle, which is heaven, whither our forerunner jesus is entered, being an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Heb. 6. ver. 19 And unto this ascension by faith, the Apostle exhorteth us Coll. 3. 1. If you be risen again with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, set your mind upon things that are above, & not upon things that are upon the earth. These authorities prove sufficiently, that we must go into heaven by faith ourselves, for the son of God after his dispensation fully accomplished in this world, cometh no more down to us in his humane nature, until he come again to receive us actually into the participation of his glory, according to his promise. john. 14. 3. But now let us see, what wholesome doctrine Saunder teacheth in those his words even now set down. First, that faith pertaineth only to the fathers before Christ, and in them called for Christ to come down unto us, which when he is come, & daily letteth down the cord of his humanity, we have no need of faith to fasten it in our bodies and hearts, but of our hands. For faith he compareth to the tongue, by means whereof, help is called for, but when a cord is let down, the use of the tongue is needless, and the hands must be occupied. Therefore he saith: It is not sufficient for a man to use his tongue still, and to let his hands alone. So that by this kind of reasoning, eating it really, being let down, is the hand, that without the tongue of faith fasteneth it to our bodies & hearts. Thirdly he holdeth, that Christ needed not to have been incarnate, if men could have fastened their bodies to any thing in heaven. Whereby he denieth, that the fathers of the old Testament by faith, were fastened in heaven, before the incarnation of Christ, restraining the virtue thereof, not only unto the time, since the same was actually performed, but also to the actual and carnal manner of conjunction of the body of Christ with our bodies, which they imagine to be in eating the flesh of Christ really.  
To conclude, professing that he intendeth not to speak against the persons, but against the opinions of the Sacramentaries, specially against Zwinglius & Caluine, his purpose is, to prove out of the word of God: That Christ giveth in his last supper, the true substance of his flesh and blood, not only to our souls, by words of promise, but also to our bodies under the forms of bread and wine. Note here, that the giving, wherein is the controversy, pertaineth to our bodies, and not to our souls. Also that the giving of Christ's flesh and blood to our souls, if I understand this saying, is not really, but by words of promise: whereof it ensueth that they, which have not eaten the flesh and blood of Christ with their bodies, from the beginning of the world, are all perished, because none can have life in them, but they that have eaten his flesh and blood, which Saunder holdeth cannot be eaten, really and in deed, but under the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament.   

CAP. FOUR  
What the supper of Christ is, according to the belief of the 
Saunder.  Catholics.  
He promiseth to show, first, out of the word of god, 
Fulke.  and next out of the monuments of the ancient fathers, what the belief of the Papists is, concerning this sacrament. Although he esteemeth even Albertus, Thomas, Bonaventure, Alexander, etc. worthy of credit, by a rule of S. Aug. cont. ●u. li. 2. because they lived before this question rose between the Sacramentaries & them: by which rule so understood, we may esteem Berengarius, Bruno, Henricus de Gauduno, Waldo, Bertrame, etc. worthy of credit, because they lived long before this question rose between the Papists & us. Wherefore in this rule of Augustine is to be considered, not between what persons, but what time the question first arose between any persons, and so the fathers of the first 600. years are the best and lest partial witnesses.  
Furthermore, he showeth that the supper of the Corinthians, was not the supper of Christ, but he had a supper of his own. And so rehearsing the words of the institution, out of the Eva 〈…〉 lists & S. Paul: he affirmeth● that we are informed by these words, the supper of Christ to be his own body & blood, given under the signs of the bread & wine, whereupon he gave thanks, turning by his almighty power the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of his body & blood. That Christ giveth his body to them that receive the bread and wine worthily, it shallbe no controversy between us. But that he giveth it under the signs of bread and wine, understanding (as he doth) signs for accidents, he should have proved out of God's word, if either he would or could have kept promise, likewise, that Christ gave thanks upon the bread and wine, and thirdly, that he turned the substance thereof into the substance of his body & blood. But leaving other arguments for other places, & not being able to prove these things in any place, he will inquire, whether the name & nature of a supper be more agreeable to their belief, or to our meaning? that is (saith he) whether Christ made his last supper of the substance of common bread & wine, or of his own real body and blood. As though we affirmed, that the only substance of Christ's supper were common bread & wine, & not the body & blood of Christ. But to proceed, & let him go with that lie, his first argument to prove how dainty & costly a banquet Christ made, taking his leave of his friends, is taken of the great preparation & promise made of it so long before, which promise & preparation, how evil favouredly he proveth out of Melchizedeks' bread & wine, Manna, the table of David & Solomon, the bread & flesh of Elias, etc., I omit. His conclusion is, we must not suppose, that Christ at his farewell, gave any other dainties, beside common bread & wine sanctified in use only, and not consecrated in substance. You may see, how absurdly he speaketh, common bread sanctified, which is as good as if he would say, Christ gave white black bread, or hot cold wine. We affirm that the bread & wine were consecrated, not in accidents, but in substance, to the use of an holy sacrament, that they might be the body & blood of Christ, to as many as received the same worthily, not by conversion of the natural substance of one thing into another, but by a wonderful divine & unspeakable change of that which is ordinatily a weak element, of the world, to be a mighty food, unto eternal life. The second argument he useth to prove the excellency of the banquet, is of the fine cookery (I use his own term, which also he doth exemplify by making 16. or 20. dishes of eggs alone, which cannot be without many spices & mixture, & great labour, etc.) But Christ, like a most cunning workman, of simple & little stuff, and that without help of his disciples, to prepare it, made the greatest & finest feast that ever was heard of, using no shifts, but only blessing or thanksgiving. The finesse of this cookery he setteth forth, by a fine speculation of the furniture of the world, by the Angels, heavens & elements, from whence it pleased God to make a revolt of all things, from the bottom of the earth, upward again towards himself: And so made out of the earth vegetative things, then sensible creatures, & last man, with a reasonable soul, as a brief sum of all creatures, & a little world, who being seduced by the devil, was by the incarnation of the son of God, restored, & then all things were briefly brought again to God. So that in this banquet, where Christ is given, there is served in one dish a composition most delicate, of angels, heavens, elements, of herbs fishes, birds, beasts, of reasonable men, and of God himself. No kind of salet meats, sauce, fruits, consection, no kind of wine, aqua vitae, aqua composita, liquors, syrups, can be found in nature, made by art, devised by wi●●e, but it is all set upon this table, and that in a small ro●●e, etc. Thus do the Catholics teach of the supper of our Lord, and believe it agreeable to his word and worthy his worship. What say you, M. S. is this the doctrine of the catholics? that the bread and wine, being turned into the body and blood of Christ, are also turned into Angels, heavens, elements, herbs, fishes, birds, beasts, men, & God himself? yea, into all salads, meats, sauces, fruits, confections, all kinds of wine, aqua vitae, aqua composita, all liquors and syrups, beside porridge, puddings, pies, pancakes, and a great many other things, which you have not named, but comprehended in general words? Is there a real conversion in deed, by reason of your heraphicall revolution? And is this doctrine agreeable to the word of God? In what place is it written, I pray you? I suppose it to be this: Eph. 1. It hath pleased God to restore in Christ all things which are in heaven, & which are in earth in him. Where the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, importeth a brief gathering into one certain head and sum, that all things in heaven and earth, are brought unto Christ, and in him as it were again, begun and renewed. And cannot this be done, except the body of Christ do really contain all things by your surmised revolt? for I dare not understand you siguratively, seeing you abhor figures in this matter of the supper; nor Hyberbolically, for that you count no better than a rhetorical lie. Wherefore, if these things be really contained, as you say, I think it small for the worship of Christ's banquet, whose excellency I take to be so great, that it containeth not these gross meats of the body, but an heavenly refreshing of the soul. And that will the old fathers, whom you cite for your cookery, plainly testify with me. First Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Vident haec sacramenta, etc. The poor in spirit see these sacraments, and contenting themselves with this one dish, they despise all the delicates of this world, and possessing Christ, they disdain to possess any stuff of this world. Behold Cyprian sayeth nor, that this dish containeth all fowls, fishes, sauces, spices, etc. but that all these are despised of them that are partakers of this dish. Again, speaking of the wicked, Et a secretis divinis omnium intra se continentibus summam, diffugiunt & recedunt, etc. They fly and departed from the divine secrets, which contain within themselves the brief or sum of all mysteries.  
He saith not, they contain meats and drinks, syrups and confections, but the sum of all mysteries or heavenly, & divine treasures, But (saith Saunder) when saint Cyprian saith, intra se, within them, he meaneth within the compass, or forms of bread and wine, for these only are the things that we can point unto, within or without: Belike he will teach us new Grammar, and new Latin also. For in our old Latin and Grammar, we learned, that sui and suus were reciproca, but Saunder will teach us that, se, signifieth the compass or forms of bread and wine: Or if the word se, signify themselves, as it was wont to do, Saunder will teach us, that the compass or forms of bread and wine, are the divine secrets themselves. For Cyprian saith that the divine secrets within themselves contain the sum of all mysteries. But mark his reason, and you will think that an Ox hath lowed it out, rather than a man spoken it. The compass or forms of bread, are the only things that we can point unto within, or without: for other meat & drink, we see not, quoth he. He will have nothing but that he can point unto with his hand, and see with his bodily eye. Whereas divine secrets, whereof Cyprian speaketh, can neither be seen with the eye, nor pointed at with the finger, but only be understood by faith, in them to whom God hath revealed them.  
His next witness is Chrysostom: in 1. Cor. Hom. 24 Quando corpus Christi, etc. When the body of Christ is set before thee, say with thyself: For this body's sake, I am no more earth and ashes. For this I hope to receive heaven, and the good things which are in heaven, immortal life, the seat of Angels, the company of Christ. The very table is the strength of our soul, the bond of trust, the foundation, our hope, salvation, life. If we go hence pure with this sacrifice, with most great confidence, we shall ascend to the holy porch or entry, as it were compassed round about with golden garments. But what rehearse I things to come? whiles we are in this life, this mystery causeth, that the earth is heaven to us. Whatsoever Chrysostom saith here, we acknowledge to be true as he did mean it: but nothing he saith for Master Sanders revolution, and as little for the carnal manner of presence or eating of Christ's body. For even as we are no more earth and ashes, & as earth is made heaven, which is after a spiritual manner by faith, and yet truly and undoubtedly, so is the body of Christ present & eaten, at the table. According to which meaning he saith in the same homily, Quemadmodum enim corpus illud unitum est Christo, ita & nos per hunc panem unione coniungimur. For even as that body is vaited to Christ, so we also by this bread are joined in an union. Note here, that body & this bread to be diverse things in natural substance: & again our conjunction to be by the bread mystically: for naturally and substantially we are not joined one to another, but in an heavenly kind of union, we are made one body of Christ, and members one of another. And this is not an empty dish of faith, as Saunder calleth it, but a full mystery of salvation. And although faith shall cease when we have the full fruition of God's promises in heaven, yet doth Saunder both absurdly, and unfaithfully gather thereof, an opposition of faith and truth, whereas faith hath thereof the name in Hebrew, because it is grounded upon truth. But what meaneth he by truth, that which he preferreth above the receiving by faith? Namely the carnal manner of receiving Christ's body, which he holdeth the wicked may do to their damnation. A worthy truth, in respect of which, saith is counted little worth as an empty dish, which yet by their own doctrine, must make their truth effectual to salvation. But see I pray you, how cunningly he reasoneth of the final cause. Christ took flesh (saith he) that our bodies might have a banquet made to them, as the souls of the faithful never lacked God, whom they might feed on by faith and spirit. By which reason the godly of the old testament, before Christ's incarnation, were but half nourished, namely in souls only, and not in bodies, if Christ's flesh be not a meat otherwise then received into the body, after the Popish meaning. Yet he supposeth, that Cyrillus favoureth this argument, In joan. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Oporiui● enim cert●, ut non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, ver●netiam ut rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gust●, tactu & cibo, ad immortalitatem reduceretur. For it behoved truly, that not only the soul should ascend, by the holy Ghost into the blessed life, but also that this rude, and earthly bodic should be brought to immortality, by tasting, touching, and by meat, which were of alliance with us. cyril meaneth of the outward element, by which our faith being instructed as our bodies are fed, so we are taught that the whole man is nourished to immortality. Therefore he saith, immediately after in the same place: N●● putet ex tarditate mentis suae judaeus, inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria: videbit enim, si attentiùs quaerit, hoc ipsum à Mos● temporibus per figuram semper factitatum suisse. Quid enim maiores corum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberavit, quando mors in primogenita Aegyptiorum sae●iebat? nónne palàm est quia divina institutione perdocti, agni carnes manducaverunt, & posts ac superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt, propterea mortem ab eis divertisse? pernicies námque, id est, carnis huius mors, adversus genus humanum propter primi hominis transgressionem surebat. Terra enim ●s, & in terram reverteris propter peccatum, ●udiuimus. Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc eversurus erat tyrannum, propterea id mysterium apud priscos obumbrabatur, & o●inis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati (Deo ita volente) perniciem essugiebant. Quid igitur O judaee turbaris, praefiguratam veritatem iam videns? our inquam turbaris, si Christus dicit, Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis sanguinem eius, non habebitis vitam in vobis, cùm oporteret, Mosaicis te legibus institutum, & priscis umbris ad credendum perdoctum, ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse. Neither let the jew of the dullness of his mind, think, that we have invented such mysteries as were never heard of: for he shall see, if he will search more attentively, that the same thing hath been always done by figure, since the time of Moses. For what hath delivered their ancestors from the plague of the Egyptians, when death raged against the first borne of the Egyptians? Is it not manifest, that they being taught by the institution of God, did eat the flesh of a Lamb and anointed the posts and upper door posts, with blood, and therefore death departed from them? For destruction, that is the death of this flesh, did rage against mankind for the transgression of the first man. For because of sin we heard, Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt return. But because Christ by his flesh, was to overthrow this cruel tyrant, therefore that mystery was shadowed to the old fathers, and being sanctified with the flesh and blood of the sheep (God so willing) they escaped destruction. Why therefore o jew, art thou troubled, seeing the truth already prefigured? Wherefore, I say, art thou troubled, if Christ say, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of Man, & drink his blood, you shall have no life in yourselves, whereas it behoved thee being instructed in the Law of Moses, & taught to believing by the old shadows, to be most ready to understand these mysteries? This place of cyril, showeth at large, that he meaneth not by taste and touching, or meat which is of alliance with us, the natural body of Christ, but the outward part of the sacrament: namely, the bread and wine: for of the body of Christ, there is neither taste, nor touching bodily in the sacrament. But even as by eating of the lambs flesh, and anointing of the blood, which prefigured the flesh and blood of Christ, and was a meat of kindred or alliance with them, with whose taste and touching they were acquainted, the jews were assured of their deliverance: so we by eating, and drinking these outward signs of Christ's body and blood, are assured of eternal life. For you must note, that he saith hoc ipsum the self same thing, was always done by figure, from the time of Moses. What was that? namely, that not only our souls by the holy Ghost, but also our bodies by external sacraments, were brought to immortality. But the same thing could not be done according to the Popish meaning before Christ's incarnation: therefore cyril is nothing less than of the Popish meaning.  
The last witness is Tertullian de resur. Carnis: The flesh is washed that the soul may be cleansed. The flesh is ointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is signed, that the soul may be defenced. The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hand, that the soul also may be illuminated. The flesh is fed with the body & blood of Christ, that the soul also may be made fat of God. They cannot therefore be parted in reward, whom work joinesh.  
We agree to that which Tertullian saith, that our flesh is fed with that body & blood of Christ, but not after a carnal or natural manner, by receiving the body and blood at our mouths, &c: but after a spiritual manner, as he himself showeth in the same book. Nam quia durum & intollerabilem existimaverunt sermonem eius, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasse, ut in spiritum disponeret statum salutis, promisit spiritus est qui vi●ificat. For because they thought his saying hard, and intolerable, as though he had determined that his flesh was to be eaten of them verily, that he might dispose the state of salvation into the spirit, he said before: It is the spirit that quickeneth.  
In these words Tertullian counteth it, the error of the Capernaites, to think that Christ determined, that his flesh should be eaten verily, meaning that his flesh was not to be eaten after a gross and natural manner, with the mouth and teeth, but with faith, and heart. Again the argument of the resurrection of our bodies, which he draweth of eating the body & blood of Christ, cannot stand but with a spiritual eating thereof. For what hope should all the fathers before the incarnation of Christ, and so many thousand Christians as since that time have never received the sacrament, have of the resurrection of their bodies, if the virtue thereof were included in the popish imagined manner of eating? Therefore Tertullian meaneth plainly, that the external sacraments, which are received with the body, & bear the name oftentimes of the things, whereof they are sacraments, are arguments and assurances, that salvation pertaineth both to the body and to the soul, and not that the body eateth and drinketh really the substance of Christ's body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, any more than the body receiveth the holy ghost under the form of water, or imposition of hands etc.   

What the supper of Christ is, according to the doctrine of the 
Saunder.  Protestants and Sacramentaries, with a confutation thereof.  
He affirmeth that we say: Christ giveth to the body bread 
Fulke.  and wine, but to the soul he giveth himself by saith, spirit, and understanding. This he maketh to be all the banquet of the new brethren. Against this he inveigheth in a long chapter. But either he is ignorant what we teach, or rather he is not willing to show it, that by rehearsing it imperfectly, he might have more advantage to dispute against it. We believe, that Christ giving unto us bread and wine, as visible seals of his invisible grace, giveth to the whole man, his body and blood, to be received of him by faith, after a spiritual and wonderful manner, passing all understanding of man, whereby we are assured, that we are spiritually fed, unto eternal life, even as by the seal of baptism, we are assured that we are spiritually, and wonderfully washed from our sins, & born anew to be the sons of God. We say not therefore the god giveth himself by faith, spirit & understanding, to our souls only: but he giveth himself unto us, to be received by faith & spiritually. But now let us see what fault he findeth with our saying: we say the truth (saith he) but not all the truth. For this had been somewhat worth, before the incarnation of Christ, when Christ was eaten only by faith, but since his incarnation, he giveth us an other kind of truth than ever he gave to them So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith, our fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and drink the same spiritual cup that we do, for they drank of the rock, which rock was Christ, as substantially as the bread and wine are his body & blood unto us. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth, because the whole man is not fed. I answer that is no cause, for we hold that the whole man is fed with Christ, to be saved both body & soul. For where he ●●ith, that faith seedeth but the soul, it is false: for God by faith feedeth both body and soul unto eternal life. But this is Sanders error, that he thinketh Christ cannot feed our bodies by faith, except he thrust his body in at our mouths. He might likewise say, that in baptism we are but half regenerated in soul only, because the holy ghost is not powered over our bodies: yet we believe that we are washed & regenerated wholly both in body and soul, so that our bodies by baptism are engrafted into the death, burial, & resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we believe, that by eating of this bread, & drinking of this cup of the Lord worthily, our whole man is fed after a spiritual manner, with the quickening flesh and blood of our saviour Christ, unto everlasting life. And whereas Leo saith, That is taken by the mouth, which is believed 
Ser. 6. de Iei●. 7. mens.  by faith: he meaneth none otherwise, then when the scripture saith, that baptism is the laver of regeneration; and when we confess that the body of Christ is eaten, when we mean the sacrament thereof is eaten bodily. In which sense, the same Leo writeth Epistel. 10. ad Plavi, against the heresy of Eutyches. Videat que 〈◊〉 transixa davis pependerit in crucis ligno, & aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi, intelligat unde sangnis & aqua esfluxerint, ut ceclesia Dei lavacro rigaretur & poculo. Let him see what nature being stricken through with nails, hath hanged on the wood of the cross, and when the side of him that was crucified was opened, let him understand, from whence that blood & water flowed, that the church of god might be moistened, both by a laver, & by a cup. By these words he showeth, that the blood in the cup, is none otherwise the blood of Christ, them the water of baptism, is the water that issued out of his side, which is far from the popish understanding. As for the often eating & drinking, recorded in the scriptures, in the sacrifices, Manna, the rock, water, the Paschal lamb the showbread, & c: which Saunder would have to be but figures of the bodily eating of Christ's flesh: I answer they were sacraments of the spiritual nourishment of the faithful appointed for that time, as this supper is appropriated to our time, and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit, could not otherwise be purged, from us, but by bodily eating of Christ's flesh, as he assurmeth. The sin of Adam was not in eating, but in eating disobediently, so that eating of itself, was no fault, nor any poison was in the nature of the fruit, that was eaten, as Saunder dreameth, but disobedience was the sin of Adam, which by the obedience of Christ is done away as S. Paul teacheth, Rom. 5. ver. 19 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man many shall be made righteous. Neither doth Cyprian say otherwise, although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruit, De Coen. Dom. Bibimus &c: We drink of the blood of Christ himself commanding, being partakers of eternal life with him, and by him, abhorring the sins of natural lust as unpure blood, & granting ourselves by taste of sin to have been deprived from blessedness and condemned, except the mercy of Christ, had brought us again unto fellowship of eternal life by his blood. Although Cyprian here allude unto the act in which disobedience was committed, yet in the end he showeth, that by the obedience of Christ shedding his blood for us, we are restored into the favour of God, and not by actual drinking of the natural blood of Christ into our bodies. Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus think otherwise, Cont. Collatine, Liberum ergo arbitrium etc. Free will therefore, that is, the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased itself, after it had loathed the use of the good things which it had received, and the aids of his own happiness, waxing of such account with it, bend his impotent greediness, unto the experience of disobedience, drank the poison of all vices, and drowned the whole nature of man with the drunkenness of his intemperance Thence it cometh, that before the eating of the same flesh of the son of man and drinking his blood, he digest that deadly surset, he faileth in memory, erreth in judgement, wavereth in going, neither is he by any means meet to choose and desire that good thing, whereof he deprived himself of his own accord. This eating and drinking cannot be understood of eating and drinking the Sacrament, for the will of man must be prepared both to choose and desire that good, from which man is fallen, before ever he be admitted to the lords table, as every Papist will confess. What impudency then is it, upon shadow of some allusion, to draw the ancient Doctor's sayings so contrary to their meaning? But Saunder seeing the shameful absurdity that followeth of this his imagined real eating of Christ's flesh, to satisfy for the real eating of Adam's apple, for so he calleth it, saith it is no more needful that every man should eat the body of Christ in his own person, then that every one should eat of the apple to make them guilty, but it is absolutely needful (saith he) that some ●r other eat it as really, as ever the apple was eaten, that all the rest, who by baptism enter into the same body, may be one perfectly with Christ, whiles they are one mystically with them, who really eat the substance of Christ's flesh, being the substance of our true sacrifice, truly roasted upon the cross. This shift of descant, then will not serve the fathers of the old testament, which were not baptized verily as the Papists hold, but in figure only. Secondly if any such real eating were necessary, it were not to be fulfilled by any, but by our saviour Christ: for what soever the transgression of Adam was, who being but one, made all guilty of damnation, that was to be satisfied by the justification of one man, which was Christ, sufficient for all men unto justification of life, Rom. 5. ver. 18. Last of all I pray you mark Saunder his phrase of speech: The flesh of Christ was truly roasted upon the cross. To omit the gross figure of roasting., and to register it among the other points of fine cookery in the chapter before described: Mark that he saith, it was truly roasted upon the cross, and yet I dare say, he meaneth not that the cross was a very spit, nor yet burning with fire to scorch it. But when we affirm that Christ is truly eaten, he can by no means allow our saying, except we should mean as he doth, that Christ is put in at our mouths, and if not chewed with our teeth, which some of them hold, yet swallowed down our throat, and so received into our bodies, to nourish them. But if he say well that Christ's flesh was truly roasted upon the cross, because his body being broken on the cross, was made meat for us, although it were not roasted with fire, etc. then may we rightly say, that Christ's body and blood is truly eaten and drunken of us by faith, although it be not put in at our mouths, nor swallowed down our throats, etc. He saith ●●was truly roasted on the cross, and truly rising from death, to th● intent it might be truly eaten of us. etc. As truly as his flesh was roasted, so truly is it eaten: but we acknowledge no cooklike roasting, but a mystical preparation: even so we believe no eating with champing, chawing, & swallowing, but a mystical and spiritual feeding and nourishing, of which we are assured by the visible seals of bread and wine, which we eat and drink bodily. After this, he allegeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Cathe●. to prove that it is necessary, as the poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect us with original sin, so, that the body of Christ be received into our body, as really by our mouths, as ever the apple came in the mouth of Adam. That he nameth not the 37. Chapter, where such a matter is spoken of, it may be, the copy he saw, had no division of chapters: but rather I fear he suppressed it of fraud, because that Chapter is confessed even by Sonnius a Papist, not to be found in many copies of that catechetical book of Gregory: and in deed the argument of that part of the oration which goeth before, and of that which followeth after, being of regeneration in baptism, which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper, showeth that it is foisted in by some late writer, which would have the new doctrine of transubstantiation to be credited under colour of the authority of this ancient father. For if Gregory had been purposed to have spoken of the Lords supper in this book of instruction, which he did write for to show the order and doctrine of Catechizing, he would first have finished his treaty of baptism and regeneration, and afterward have descended to the other part of God's dispensation, which consisteth in preserving and feeding his children that are borne unto him, which grace is represented in the lords supper. I pass over that Nicephorus testifieth, even that book in his time to have been corrupted by divers heretics & Origenists by name, which corruption and diversity of copies gave some transubstantiator good hope, that his addition in such variety of books might happily of some be accounted for the authentical authority of Gregory. And he was nothing deceived. For M. Saunder, whether he think it to be such, or only would have us to acknowledge it for such, dissembling the un certainty thereof, which other papists confess; setteth it forth, as the sound and undoubted authority of Gregory Nyssene. As for his vain cavilling, that the figure of a medicine healeth not, is foolish and absurd: for so he might reason, that baptism is no medicine for original sin, but a figure of a medicine. We make not the sacraments figures of medicines, but outward signs of inward and spiritual healing. The virtue of cleansing sins, is not included in the water, no more than the spiritual feeding is in the bread and wine. And more absurd it is, that he chargeth us with shadows in the sacraments. And where he sayeth, that all spiritual gifts are inferior to the flesh of Christ being in our mouth: if he mean inferior in utility, it is false: for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh, which he imagineth in our mouths, the Papists confess, that we may be saved, but with that flesh in our mouths, by their own doctrine, we may be damned.  
From this place he beginneth to rave against Calvin, although he have appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error. Calvin's supper he saith, in respect of Christ's real substance, is but a mere savour of sweet meats. As though Caluine did not acknowledge that Christ is truly eaten of them, that worthily receive the sacraments. Beside this he chargeth Caluine, as one that setteth forth the kingdom of the devil, & abaseth the kingdom & gifts of God. Because he hath diligently & eloquently set forth the doctrine of man's fall & damnation, but in the doctrine of salvation & renovation by Christ, he hath dealt faintly & weakly. God be thanked, they which will read Calvin of this point, with indifferent judgement, will confess, that he hath showed no less diligence & eloquence therein, then in the other. And wherefore hath he set forth y● one, but for the glory of the other? And even by those things which be not slanders in Sand, by which he saith he hath abased the kingdom & gift of God, he hath greatly magnified the glory thereof: which is, that all power, virtue, help, comfort, grace, & gifts, come only from God by the only means of jesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christ's little flock is contemptous in the eyes of the world, that many are called and few are chosen, that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatory, no popish priesthood, no one shepherd on earth, but only the death, eternal priesthood, and great shepherd jesus Christ. As for the cold supper, small offering of sufficient grace, baptism like a sheepemarke, no authority to make laws, no communion of saints, no real joining and uniting with Christ's flesh and blood in the holy mysteries, etc. be Sanders lies, and slanders; not Caluins assertions. After he hath railed a crash at Caluine, unto whose felicity this may be added, that he is slandered by so evil a person, as Saunder is, he repeateth the diverse suppers of Luther, Zwinglius, Caluine, joining to them also the fantastical opinion of that epicurian gospeler, Carolastadius, and dissevering Caluine from Zwinglius, with whom he agreeth fully. And Calvin's supper he saith, were good for Angels, to feed upon immortal meat in their souls, but Christ hath given his body and blood to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feed on. Verily, even as he hath given the holy ghost to wash us body and soul from all our sins, and to regenerate us to be the sons of God: Saunder might say, if he would, this were a regeneration, or birth, good for Angels, that have no bodies. For he will not understand, that both body and soul may be nourished by spiritual food, as well as both body & soul borne a new by a spiritual washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians (saith he) had two faults, both which the heretics do follow. The first fault, they came to it after they had eaten their own supper, so the heretics first devise what supper they will allow Christ, and then they come to it, conforming it to their devise. In deed so do the Papists. The second fault was, they did eat and drink alone without making their meat common to the poor: so the heretics eat and drink alone, teaching, that every man eateth Christ only by measure of his own faith. Nay rather the Popish heretics eat and drink all alone often times, not tarrying for other to communicate with them, and always they drink all alone, giving no part to them that would drink with them, which is worse than the Corinthians did: for they eat not their supper alone, which teach that Christ must be eaten of the whole Church together, requiring faith in every man that shall receive the Sacrament worthily. But Saunder maketh Christ so liberal, that he giveth himself to all that sit at the table, rich or poor, good or bad. In deed, he offereth himself to all, but he giveth himself to none, but to such as receive him thankfully, and which take profit by him: wherefore he saith, He that eateth me, shall live for me, whereupon it followeth invincibly, that he which liveth not for him, eateth him not. Neither saith Hierom any thing contrary to this, where he sayeth, that Christ hath given his body to be eaten, himself being the meat and the feaster or guest. True it is, that Christ alone in his death, was the priest, the Sacrifice, and the temple, or altar, not playing all parts, as Saunder lewdly speaketh, but performing thoroughly in his own person, whatsoever was necessary for our full and perfect redemption, the seal and assurance whereof, with all benefits thereto belonging, he giveth us in his holy supper, and not bare odours of spiritual grace, but a true communicating of his body and blood unto everlasting life, of as many as with a true and lively faith receive it spiritually, as their bodies receive the outward elements of bread and wine bodily. Like as in baptism we receive not bare odours of spiritual grace, but are verily borne a new, and engraffed into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, after a divine and heavenly manner with forgiveness of our sins, even as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water. Wherefore, that which we teach of the receiving of the body and blood of Christ by faith, is no denying of the lords supper, but a clear exposition and setting forth of the same, according to the holy scriptures, and the institution of our Saviour Christ himself.   

CAP. VI  
A special error of Caluine is confuted, who taught, This is 
Saunder.  my body, which is given for you, to be words of promise, in the way of preaching at Christ's supper, whereas they are words of performance in the way of working.  
The long babbling, quarreling, and wrangling, that he useth in this large Chapter, is grounded upon one poor 
Fulke.  sophistication of Saunder, in disjoining those things, that are to be conjoined & matched together. Namely, where Caluine saith, the saying of Christ to be words of promise: Saunder presseth him to say, they be words of promise only, where he sayeth expressly, that they are also words of performance, as Saunder himself translateth his words: They are a lively preaching, which may show his efficacy in accomplishment of that it promiseth. Is not efficacy in accomplishment, which is all one with performance, here joined with promise? To omit therefore his railing against Caluine, for singularity, & against the preachers of England, for following his fancy, etc. let us see, what matter he hath to bring against Caluins saying, that those words are words of promise. First he confesseth, that they are words of promise, fulfilling a promise made before, at Capernaum. Also they are words of promise, in respect of the death of Christ, which is promised in these words which is given for you, or, shallbe given for you, etc. but this saying. This is my body, is no more words of promise, than the saying: This is my well-beloved son, which are words of witness, of a thing present. Then he will teach the difference between a promise and a performance: a promise (saith he) beginneth the bargain, the performance endeth it. Let it be so, that should prove the words of Christ to be a promise, whereof the performance followeth upon the conditions required.  
In the institution of the supper, there is mention of a new covenant. In every covenant there must be two parties at the least. Christ is one party, but who is the other party, will Master Saunder say? Every man, or every faithful man only? The new testament is a covenant of forgiveness of sins, but forgiveness of sins is not obtained of all men, but only of them that believe: therefore not all men, but only the faithful are the other party in this covenant. Wherefore, though the promise of eating of Christ's body, even as of forgiveness of sins, is offered by Christ generally to all men, yet the performance is only unto the faithful, which are the other party of the covenant. Whereof it followeth, that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ, and so the words of Christ are words of promise, the performance whereof was in them that did receive faithfully, that which he offered. But the words of Christ (saith he) speak not of the time to come, but of the present time, ergo no promise. A sorry reason, by which he might prove, a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures, to be no words of promise, because they are spoken, not only in the present time, but also in the time past. And yet the words of Christ must have relation unto the time to come. For Christ did not consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood, but with purpose, that they should be eaten and drunken. And therefore he biddeth them first eat & drink, and then sayeth, This is my body, this is my blood, that is to say, In eating and drinking this bread and this cup, you shall eat and drink my body and blood: Therefore, in these words, This is my body: the covenant is not ended, as Saunder sayeth, until that which is offered on the one party, be accepted on the other party. Where he affirmeth, that words of promise, consist in bare talk, he giveth a bare judgement of the promises of God, which are effectual in work, although they be uttered in words. And when he sayeth, they have no condition, or delay annexed, it is untrue, although it be not necessary, that every promise should have a condition, for many promises are made absolutely. But God's promises require the condition of faith, in them that shall obtain the performance of them, and so doth this. And therefore the promise of spiritual communicating, (which Saunder objecteth) helpeth not judas, because he receiveth it not with faith. Saunder asketh Caluine, whether the condition of faith, be written in the supper or no: If not, how dare Caluine supply it? Hath he not choked Caluine with this question, trow you? But if Caluine can find a covenant in the supper, he will not seek far off, to find faith, necessarily required in the receivers thereof. But he hath two other reasons against the promise, one of the word, This; another of the word, Is. This (saith he) showeth where the thing is, that it pointeth unto. The body of Christ is promised, & also pointed unto. If the word, This, be such a pointer, I pray you sir, where is that which is pointed unto, when he saith of the cup: This is the new testament in my blood? Was that which seemed the cup, or that in the cup the new testament, which was pointed unto? If it were a sacrament or seal of the new testament, confirmed in his blood which was shed for us, than was the other a Sacrament or seal of the new testament, confirmed in the breaking and giving of his body for us. It angreth Saunder, that Caluine should: say Christ saying, This is my body, speaketh not to the bread, but to his disciples, wherein he would make him so singular, that not only the Papists, but also all Lutherans & Zwinglians, do confess the words to be spoken to the bread, which is a shameful lie, both of the Lutherans & of the Zwinglians, for none of them is so mad, to think that when he began to speak to his disciples, and say: Take and eat, than he turned his tale from them, and spoke to the bread, when he said: This is my body, & then again to his disciples, when he said, which is given for you: For, if he had spoken to the bread, he would have said, thou art my body, and not, this is my body, which is of the third person. And to put all out of doubt, S. Mark saith, speaking of the cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he said unto them, This is my blood. If he spoke not to the wine, but to his disciples, when he said, this is my blood, then surely he spoke not to the bread, but to his disciples, of the bread: when he said, This is my body. Mark this well, for although it be but a small matter, yet it overthroweth the whole mystery of Popish Consecration. The argument of this verb, est, is, taketh for proof, that which is in controversy, namely, that it is put properly, because it is indeed Christ's body, when the words are spoken. But seeing by your own divinity, it is not the body of Christ, before the last syllable, 'em, be pronounced, how could the Verb est, be taken properly: when neither before it was spoken, nor while it was in speaking, the body of Christ was made of bread? But Saunder will know, by what Scriptures, Caluine proveth his lewd interpretation: As though Caluine affirmeth any thing, of this matter, which he proveth not plentifully by the scriptures, which are of the nature of Sacraments generally: and of this Sacrament especially, of the nature of the humanity of Christ, & of many tropical speeches, used throughout the scriptures, which he that will, may read at large in his writings. In the mean time, let us see, how Saunder doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God.  
The first argument of confutation, is gathered of the present temps, used in these words: This is my body, which agreeth not with the nature of a promise, which is a prediction of a thing to come. I have before answered this lewd argument: for all promises are not uttered in the future temps: Esay saith, Puer natus est nobis, a child is born unto 
Esay. 9  us, when he was not borne, 500 years after. I have showed before, that the words, This is my body, have relation to the eating which followed after they were uttered. Caluine saith further, that Christ speaketh not to the bread, that it should be made his body: But he commandeth his disciples to eat, & promiseth them the communicating of his body & blood. Against this, Saunder replieth, that God said to his disciples, take, eat, which is a commandment, and no promise: He saith further, This is my body, that is, the making of the meat, which must be eaten, & the showing of it, but no promise. S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is it not the communicating of the body of Christ? Who dare say the contrary? But is the bread which we break, an actual communicating of the body of Christ, before we eat it? No verily. How is then the bread that we break, a communicating of the body of Christ, before we eat it, but by promise of communicating to them, that shall eat it faithfully? And if these words, This is my body, be not words of promise, of communicating his body, what other words of promise, can Saunder show in the institution? But now will Saunder prove at large, that Christ spoke not to his disciples, when he said, This is my body: but to the bread. Although I have already proved, out of the words of S. Mark, that Christ spoke to his disciples, so plainly, that Sanders ears may gloe on his head for shame, to read it: yet will I consider all his particular arguments, by which he taketh upon him to prove, that Christ spoke to the bread.  
The first reason, Christ speaketh sometimes to unsensible creatures: as to the winds, the figtree, and all creatures here the voice of God, when he speaketh to them, so he speaketh here, to the bread. If this consequent, did hang to the Antecedent by any necessity, I would grant it; otherwise I must deny it. Well, yet thus much is gained, that it is not absurd, that Christ should speak to the bread, being a senseless creature. yes very absurd, that beginning to speak to men, he should suddenly make an apostrophe to bread, and without any transition, but even with a relative, as suddenly return to speak to men. And that speaking to bread, he should use no word of the second person, which he useth, in speaking to the Winds, & to the Figtree.  
The second reason beginneth thus: Caluine saith, Christ spoke not to the bread I tell him, he spoke to the bread, not as to a thing which should carry bread, but as to that which should be changed into his body: For he called the bread his body. Is not this a magistral, or doctoral kind of reasoning? I tell him (quoth Saunder) it is so: but how proveth he that Christ spoke to the bread, because he called it his body? Which if Caluine will deny, he hath it ready out of Tertullian, adver. Marc. lib. 4. Panem corpus suum appellat: He calleth the bread his body. But we cannot call a thing, except we speak unto it. Therefore when Christ called the bread his body, he spoke unto the bread, as if he had said unto the bread, be thou my body. Who would have thought it? Saunder cannot call a stone, a stone, but he speaketh to a stone: nor a shovel, a shovel, but he speaketh to a shovel. And with Saunder, it is all one, to say: This is a shovel, or a stone, and be thou a shovel, or a stone. Nay, he will say, with God, calling and making is all one, where he will make one thing of another. In deed that is another matter. If this will of God could be proved, of the bread to make his natural body, calling and making might be one, and yet it would not follow, that Christ intending to turn bread into his natural body, by these words: This is my body, could not do it, except he spoke to the bread.  
But now let us see, how he proveth, that Christ made the bread, his natural body. First, Ambrose writeth de iis qui mist. init. Cap. 9 Ante bene dictionem etc. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind, after consecration, the body is signified. He himself nameth it his blood. Before consecration, it is named another thing, after consecration it is called blood. And thou sayest, Amen: that is, it is true. That which the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confess. That which the speech soundeth, let the affection feel. Out of these words, Saunder saith, that it is evident, that Christ spoke to the bread and wine; but by what reason, I cannot devise: and that the making of them, is in deed so as they are called and signified, because the people answered, Amen. I grant the bread and wine, are made sacraments, to signify the body and blood of Christ, and that is it, which the people confess, if Ambrose expound the words of Christ truly, when he saith, that the body of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called bread and wine before the words of blessing, and afterward is called the body and blood of Christ. This 1. witness speaketh not so much against him, but Tertullian, his second witness speaketh much more. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. He made the bread which was taken, and distributed to the disciples, his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body. Lo he made the bread his body. We confess, but how his body? That is to say, a figure of his body: but being a figure stoppeth not the real truth of his body (saith he): no more than Christ, being a figure, print or form, of his father's substance, which is yet also his substance in deed. What sayest thou, Sabellian heretic? Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis, from his father, because he is Homoousion of the same substance, and is not that proved, because he is Character substantiae patris? And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the divinity, with the figures of Christ. Yea saith Saunder, There can be no more gross, more vile, more blasphemous opinion, then to think that Christ is a bare man: etc. Or that his figures are like the figures of the old Law. And again, look what odds is between God and man, so much believe thou to be between his naming, or his figures of the new Testament, and all other figures. Why Saunder, were the naming in the old Testament of man, and not of GOD? Were the figures instituted of man, and not of God? Yea, were they not instituted of Christ himself? If they were instituted of God, how followeth thy beastly conclusion, of the difference, or odds of figures, and naming of the new Testament, and figures, and naming of the old Testament? The rock was Christ, it was a figure and naming of the old Testament, so named and instituted by Christ himself, why should there be more transubstantiation of the bread, then of the rock? except as thou wast even now a Sabellian, so in this thou art a Marcionite, that believest another GOD, and Christ of the new Testament, than was of the old Testament.  
Augustine, speaking of the figures of the old Testament, and comparing them with the figures of the new Testament, sayeth, Sacramenta illa fuerunt, in signis diversa sunt, in re quae significatur paria sunt. Those were sacraments, they are diverse in signs, but in the thing which is signified, they are equal. in joan. 6. Tr. 26. Over, and beside this, examining Tertullian, let us ask him, what did Christ distribute to his disciples? He will answer panem, bread. Again, how made he the bread his body? he answereth, he made it a figure of his body. Yea saith Saunder, the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's body: because it showeth his death until he come.  
But what is the sacrament with you Papists? The natural body of Christ. Then the natural body of Christ, is a figure of the body of Christ: if this be not shameless trifling, I report me to you. Tertullian is a good expounder to interpret the name of Corpus, by figura Corporis, if Corpus be taken properly. But to proceed. The next reason to prove that Christ spoke to the bread, is this: The Sacrament is a sacrifice, the act which offereth it, and voweth it, pertaineth as well to the thing offered, as unto God, to whom it is offered: as when a Lamb is offered, God in the Lamb is honoured, prayed unto, blessed, thanked, and praised. I omit these strange phrases: God is prayed to, in a Lamb. etc. But speak plainly Saunder, if thou darest: is the Lamb spoken unto, when it is said, This is the passover: This is the blood of the covenant, which God hath made with you? For thou must not think, to reason with men in such sort, as boys would not suffer thee to pass. The act of sacrificing pertaineth to the thing offered: therefore the thing offered is spoken unto. But how provest thou, that this Sacrament is a sacrifice? Because, it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice, made by his death upon the cross, It must also needs partake that nature, whereof it is a remembrance: and consequently, it must be certainly believed, to be a true sacrifice, as that of the cross was. Who will grant, or how canst thou prove, the mayor of this argument, Every remembrance must partake the nature of that, whereof it is a remembrance? Is the remembrance of a man, a man? or the remembrance of God, God? or to pose thee in thine own popery, is the memory of a Mass, as you call it, a Mass? But that reason cannot prove, authority shall enforce. First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith, that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei, the eucharist of the body & blood of Christ is made. The bread (saith Saunder) cannot take the word, which is not directed to it. Yes, as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God, spoken by God to men, and by prayer directed to God by men, and not to the creatures that are eaten & drunken. The same Irenaeus, is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying, Panis percipiens vocationem dei, bread receiving the calling of God, is not now common bread, but the eucharist consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly. If vocation be not here taken for invocation, or calling upon God, as it is most like, yet at least, it is taken for the virtue of God's word, which it may receive, although the word be directed to men, and not to bread. But the earthly thing whereof the sacrament consisteth, (saith Saunder) is the old form of bread, as though accidents without the subject and substance of earth, be earthly. Secondly the heavenly thing is the body of Christ: this is true, if he meant as Irenaeus meaneth, the body of Christ, the divine virtue and efficacy of Christ's body sacrificed, for our redemption. But as he understandeth it, for the natural body of Christ: like as it is monstrous to affirm that the form or shape of bread is an earthly matter: so is it heretical and anabaptistical, to say, that the natural body of Christ is an heavenly matter or substance.  
The second authority is, justinus in Apol. 2. Cibun qui per verbum precationis, etc. We have learned that the food which is consecrated by the word of prayer, which we took of him, to be the flesh and blood of jesus Christ. He yieldeth the words of justinus, who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the word, Food, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which food our blood, and flesh by transmutation, are nourished: which confuteth transubstantiation, and carnal eating. But to the matter in question. This word of prayer (saith Saunder) can be none other, but, This is my body: as though Christ hath not taught us to frame our prayers, but by that saying. But see the conclusion that will follow, admitting these words, This is my body, to be words of prayer: Then are they not words of performance: for prayer and performance differ as much as promise, and performance. Again, when Saunder saith, they are not words of preaching, because they are words of prayer: for preaching is directed principally to the people, and prayer only to God. Mark the conclusion. If they be words of prayer, and words of prayer be directed only to God: then are they not directed to the bread.  
The like may be gathered of that he saith, that they be words of sacrifice, which were Idolatry, to direct to any but to God: and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatry, for directing them to the people, not remembering that it is as great Idolatry, to direct them to the bread, if they were words of sacrifice. But they are directed finally to GOD (saith he) as though words of preaching, were not finally directed to GOD: and by the way of sacrificing, they appertain to the bread, as though words of sacrificing appertain not to the people, for whom the sacrifice is offered, as much and more, then to the thing that is sacrificed. For what is a sacrifice of an Ox, or a Calf (of which he taketh similitudes) but a figurative preaching? Hath any man so great leisure to confute such insensible arguments?  
But Hierom ad evag. tom. 2. sayeth, that at the prayers of Priests, the body and blood of Christ is made. Doubtless at none other prayers (saith Saunder) then wherein they say, with mind of sacrificing over bread, This is my body: etc. seeing his argument is nothing else, but doubtless, we may not doubt upon it. A strange prayer, wherein nothing is asked, and he that prayeth, speaketh not in his own person, but in the person of another. But August. saith in Psal. 39 The performance of things promised, hath taken away the promising words, I will give, is a word of promise; I have given, is a word of performance. The evangelists testify, that Christ hath given, therefore his words are not words of promise. I answer, The Evangelists testify, that Christ gave bread, which he broke, and gave unto his disciples, promising the communicating of his body, to them that did eat it faithfully, in saying, this is my body which is broken for you: the condition of faithful receiving, required in all God's covenants, must needs be included in this, although in every place where mention thereof is made, it be not expressed.  
From this matter, he returneth to the former talk of sacrifice. These words (saith he) fulfil the act of sacrifice, and therefore they are called of justinus Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of prayer, or vow. It is false that he saith that justine calleth these words, This is my body, words of prayer, or vow: for he saith, the food to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that for which thanks is given by word of prayer: yet Augustine saith Ep. 59 Voventur, etc. All things are vowed which are offered to God, specially the oblation of the holy altar. And again, Orationes. etc. We take prayers to be said, when that which is on the Lord's table, is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed. This blessing and sanctifiing (saith Saunder) is made by prayer, that prayer is vowing to God of bread and wine: let all this be granted, what followeth? The word of vowing, is to say over it, This is my body. That is the matter in controversy, which with Saunder, is always a good argument, but yet remaineth to be proved. But now we must see the difference between Caluine & the old fathers. Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation. Irenaeus li. 4. Ca 32. witnesseth that Christ having taken bread and given thanks, said. This is my body, and confessed the chalice to be his blood, and taught a new oblation of the new testament, which also he proveth out of Malachi the Prophet. Caluine will have no working upon the bread, but only in the minds of the hearers, and neither prayer, nor vow, nor sacrifice, in these words. Neither hath Saunder proved, that in these words, is either prayer, vow, or sacrifice. Nevertheless, Caluine acknowledgeth, the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers under stood, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of atonement for sins. For thus writeth Irenaeus: Novi testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum, etc. He taught the oblation of the new testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offereth to God through out the whole world, even to him which giveth food unto us, the first fruits of his gifts. Here is no oblation of the body and blood of Christ, but thanksgiving unto God for his benefits. And what the sacrifice foreshowed by Malachi was, he expoundeth out of S. john, in the Apocalypse, the prayers of the saints. Cap. 35. Also Cap. 34. expounding what is that pure sacrifice foreshowed by Malachi, and taught by Christ, he saith: Oportet enim nos oblationem deo facere, & in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori deo, in sententia pura, & fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione feruenti, primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturarum offerentes: & hanc oblationem Ecclesia solapuram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius. For we must make this oblation to God, and in all things be found thankful to God our maker in a pure mind, and faith without hypocrisy, in steadfast hope and fervent love, offering the first fruits of those creatures which are his: and this pure oblation, the Church alone offereth to her maker, offering to him of his own creature, with thanksgiving. Thus writeth Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Church, which cannot stand with the Popish sacrifice, of Christ's natural body and blood.  
And whatsoever Gregory Nyss. Chrysostom, or Ambrose write, of changing the bread, consecrating of the things set forth, working of Christ's words, hath none other meaning, but of the spiritual changing, consecrating, and working of God, in the worthy receivers of this sacrament, as in more proper places, shall be showed out of every one of them.  
The next argument to prove that Christ spoke to the bread, is of the custom of the East Church, in which, the people answered Amen, when the words of consecration were pronounced aloud, which he proveth out of Ambrose. The same appeareth in Augustine sermone ad Infants, which proveth, that it was the custom of the Latin Church in those days, to pronounce the words openlv: for Ambrose and Augustine were both of the West or Latin Church, and therefore the fecret whispering of the Popish Church, is proved to be but new, in comparison, belike invented since transubstantiation came to town, and therefore that custom proveth nothing worth the answering, howsoever Saunder prefer it before the custom of the elder Church. To the which I answer, that Amen may be said, as well to words of promise, and more properly, then to words of performance. For Amen, doth not only affirm a thing to be so, but also wisheth that it may be so.  
But now, there is another ancient custom, witnessed by Irenaeus out of Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. who reproving Victor bishop of Rome, for excommenicating the Churches of Asia, dissenting from him in the celebration of Easter, affirmeth that Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, used solemnly to send the Eucharisty to those priests, who came out of those quarters, where Easter was kept otherwise then it was it Rome. Ergo (saith he) the sacrament is a corporal real thing, which may be preserved, carried, sent up and down, and so at last received. And so consequently, the words in question, are words of performance, and not of promise. Although the consequence is not sure, yet the foundation of this whole argument is nought. For Irenaeus sayeth not, that the Sacrament was preserved, carried, sent up and down, but that it was sent solemnly unto strangers, not into foreign countries, but to such as came to Rome, neither doth he say, that it was sent unto their lodgings or Inns, but for any thing that he sayeth, it was sent unto them, being present at the time of distribution and celebration of the supper: for he sayeth before: Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclcsiae societate, aut venientes ab illis paribus non sunt suscepti. Yet were they never for this repulsed from the society of the Church, or coming from those parts, were not received. And afterward he showeth, that Anicetus did give place unto Polycarpus, permitting him to minister the Communion, as one whom he honoured. So that no reservation, nor sending up and down, is hereof proved, other than sending the communion by the Deacons, about the Church, as their custom was. But justinus saith expressly, that it was sent unto them which were absent, by the Deacons, which had no power to consecrate, and therefore Caluine reproveth that custom for an abuse.  
But for as much as justinus maketh mention before of the collation of alms, which was also blessed, and that he affirmeth, that the Deacous carried it, is not unlike, but that this carriage might be of bread and wine, which was then offered in great quantity, to the relief of such poor, as being letted by sickness or imprisonment, could not be present, at the holy assemblies. Or if you will needs understand, that which was sent to be the sacrament, although the Deacons might not consecrate, yet might they declare the virtue and force of the consecration, and the use of the Sacrament, unto such as they did carry it, from the congregation, with which, those that upon necessary cause were absent, were present in spirit, & might communicate more tolerably, than they which among the Papists, when they have no let, refuse to communicate with the priest, and after in sickness receive their mass cake, communicating with none at all. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied, but such carrying of the sacrament, if it were used in the eldest Church, was an abuse, because it hath none allowance in the holy Scriptures of Christ's institution, but a commandment to the contrary: for these words, Take and eat, be words of commanding: therefore keeping and sending, which are contrary to these, cannot be defended, howsoever they might be excused. Wherefore, it is without reason, that Caluine is charged with intolerable pride, for finding fault with the primitive Church, and bringing no reason of his reproving. For Caluine opposeth the commandment of Christ, the end of the institution, which he worthily calleth the truth, against any custom, of any man, how good soever he were. Cyprian sayeth, we must not regard what any man hath done before us, but what Christ, which is before all, hath done and commanded to be done. lib. 2 Ep. 3. The custom of ministering with water, was ancient, and used in the primitive Church, by some (as it should seem by Cyprian) otherwise godly men. But he concludeth against it, Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem; Neither must we follow the custom of man, but the truth of God. It is therefore a fault, to keep the sacramental bread and wine, or to send it about, because Christ hath neither done nor commanded it to be done, but the contrary, to be eaten and drunken. This reason of Cyprian is Caluins' reason, of whose writings, Saunder willeth all men to take heed: and yet he sayeth, they shall find in them neither learning nor honesty. If there be no learning in them, there is no great danger of hurt by reading of them. I marvel, what that is, which you Papists call learning: for if it be knowledge of sciences, of tongues, of ancient writings, of things past, of things present, weight in reasoning, eloquence in uttering, power in reproving, or whatsoever was in old time accounted for learning, I trust all indifferent men will confess, that great steps thereof may be found in Caluins' writing. But if learning be nothing else with Papists, but that which they fantasy themselves to know, there is none learned but Papists. Whereas Saunder threateneth upon the defence of Caluins' supposed error, taken in hand by any of his scholars, to discover more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master, if he can have so much leisure from his traitorous practices in Ireland, which he hath lately taken in hand, under the service of his devilish blasphemous & antichristian master, the Pope, I wish him not to spare: not doubting, but as I have so discovered his proud, and yet blockish ignorance, in this Chapter, in such sort as his friends will blush to read it, although he be past shame himself: so in any matter, wherein the Church of England doth consent with Caluins' writing, I shallbe able by God's help, so to defend the truth, that all his much babbling, trifling, quarreling, controlling, lying, railing, shall turn to his own confusion, and the reproach of the Baby lonicall strumpet, which he laboureth, both with pen and sword, tongue and hand, both like an heretic & a traitor, to protest and maintain against the church of God.    

The second book.  

CAP. 1.  
The Catholics require their cause to be uprightly tried by the 
Saunder.  holy scriptures, which they have always studied & reverenced.  
THis request is reasonable, if it were 
Fulke.  faithfully meant, but it is nothing but an heretical brag, because you seem to have colour in the holy scriptures, for your carnal, and as you call it, real presence, otherwise, what study soever you have followed in your closerts, your open writings declare small reverence unto the holy Scriptures. For Pigghius one of them, whom you name to have convinced these heresies in our days, by holy scripture, calleth the holy Scripture a nose of wax, and a dumb judge. These I ween be words of small reverence. Eckius, another of them, calleth the Scripture, a black Gospel, and an inkish divinity. And Hosius, a third man sayeth, these words of our Saviour Christ, Drink ye all of this, if they be understood generally, aswell of lay men as of Priests, to be the express words of the devil, and that there is no word in all the Scripture of power to save, but one only word, Dilige.  
And generally, all Papists, which before our time, and in our days, have taken upon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures, submitting the understanding of them to the Pope's determination, declare, that they reverence them not as the holy word of God, but esteem them as a leaden rule, which they may draw to any thing that shall please them. The absuide and lewd interpretations of many of the Popes, and other their applesquires, whereof the subtler Papists in these days, are ashamed, would fill a large volume, if I should go about to rehearse them. The best excuse that Harding can find for many of them, is that they are spiritual dalliance (in the devils name) by which you may see, what reverence they bear to the holy scriptures, that make them an argument of dalliance.   

CAP. II.  
It is proved by the word of God, that evil men receive the 
Saunder.  both of Christ in his supper.  
The Apology against which Saunder fighteth, professeth, That in the supper (unto such as believe) there is 
Fulke.  truly giu en the body and blood of the Lord. Saunder replieth, that judas received the body of Christ, ergo not only they that believe. Concerning judas, it is a question, whether he received the Sacrament or no. Not only because, as Saunder confesseth, that some ancient father's thought that he went out before the supper, namely, Hilarius in Math, Can. 30. Post que judas pr●dit●y iudicaur, sine quo Pascha accepto chalice & fracto pane conficitur. After which things judas is declared to be a traitor, without whom the passover is made, the cup being taken, and the bread being broken: But also by consequence of Sanders own confession in lib. 1, Cap. 4. fol. 18. where he affirmeth, that Christ did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the paschal Lamb, washed his disciples feet, and then sat down again to supper. But S. john testifieth, that judas departed immediately after the sop received, which was before supper was ended. For this sop could not be the sacrament, (as Augustine thinketh) seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a sop dipped in broth, and so was this sop dipped in the platter, and not in the cup. But to admit that judas was present, and did receive the Sacrament; how proveth he, that he received the body of Christ? That which Christ delivered, judas received: Christ delivered his body, ergo judas received his body. Neither the mayor nor the minor of this argument, is out of controversy. For judas received not whatsoever Christ delivered: for Christ delivered a spiritual communication of his body, as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that would receive it, which judas received not: therefore the mayor is false. The minor taketh as granted, that whereof is all the controversy: namely, that Christ delivered his body under the forms of bread, which we deny, affirming that he gave bread into their hands, and his body after a spiritual manner, to them which received it by faith.  
The Apology further affirmeth, the Papists to teach the very body of Christ to be eaten substantially, not only of wicked men, but also (which is horrible to speak) of mice and dogs. Saunder answereth, that it is not worth the while to discuss, whether mice & dogs, in some sense eat the body of Christ, because the catholics keep it so warily, that neither mouse nor dog may come nigh it: wherein he controlleth the schoolmen, who have long disputations & doctoral determinations of that question. In the end he thinketh it worse, that wicked men should eat, then if dogs or mice should eat it. But in deed they are both blasphemous absurdities. As for the fathers, whom he quoteth, for wicked men's eating of the body of Christ, we shall consider in the next Chapter, which is proper for that title. His next argument is out of S. Paul: whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus: unworthy eating, supposeth an eating. It is very true: but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread, and not eating of this body. Yea, saith Saunder, Saint Paul doth warily describe that kind of bread, both with an article and a pronoun: ergo that bread is the body of Christ. I deny that argument. The article and the pronoun, show that it is not common bread, but the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. But how can he which eateth this bread unworthily, be guilty of the body of Christ, which he eateth not? Very well. For he which abuseth the King's seal, is guilty of the kings Majesty, which he acknowledgeth not. But this argument out of Saint Paul, he referreth unto another time, returning again to judas. That thing whereof Christ said to the twelve, Take, eat, and drink, was taken, eaten, and drunken of all the twelve, and was but one thing only concerning eating and drinking, that is his body and blood: therefore judas did eat the same that Peter, james, and john did.  
We heard in the last Chapter of the first book, that it consisted of two things, by the judgement of Irenaeus, an earthly sub stance, and an heavenly, the one all received, the other only the faithful, therefore, the antecedent of this argument is false. But if that argument be not plain enough, we must take another. judas and john did eat one thing: Each of them, that food, whereof Christ said, this is my body: but john did truly eat Christ's body: ergo judas did truly eat Christ's body. I answer, the mayor is ambiguous, for if one food be taken for one bread, it is true, but if one thing be taken for the body of Christ, it is the matter in controversy, and denied of us. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous. For if ye understand eating of Christ's body truly, eating by faith spiritually, it is true, and as the Apology meaneth: if you understand eating Christ's body carnally, it is false, and denied of the Apology, that john did so eat the body of Christ. The argument is no better than this: judas and john, did hear one Gospel each of them, that whereof it is said, that it is the power of God to salvation: But john did hear the Gospel to his salvation: ergo judas did hear the Gospel to his salvation. But Saunder cavilleth, of delivering of bakers bread, and nothing else, but Baker's bread. Christ offereth two things, earthly bread, and his divine body. Now if judas receive the one, and refuse the other, what folly is it to reason, of Christ's delivering? which is like as if a man will deliver an obligation as his deed, and the party that should receive it, will not receive it, but as a scroll, and so renteth it in pieces. In deed therefore Christ offereth his body to all men: but they only receive it, which believe. But eating by faith, (saith Saunder) is a preparation to worthy eating, but the meat is all one, even as the baptism is all one, to the wicked and to the godly. I will ask no better example, then of the Sacrament of Baptism, where indeed, the water, which is the outward element, is common to all that are sprinkled or washed, as the bread is to all that eat: but regeneration, the thing signified by the water, is proper only to the elect of GOD: Even so the body of Christ, which is the thing signified by the bread, is not received but of them, which believe unto eternal life.   

CAP. III.  
The ancient fathers teach, that evil men receive truly the body 
Saunder.  of Christ.  
The first father cited, is Origen, in Psalm. 37. who 
Fulke.  ●aith: that those which come to the eucharist, without examining and cleansing themselves, are like to men sick of an ague, who presuming to eat sanorum cibos, the meats of whole men, do hurt themselves. Whereupon Saunder gathereth, that the meat of the supper, which is provided for whole men, is truly, but not profitably eaten of the wicked. But that Origen was of no such judgement, it is manifest by his express words, spoken of the eating of the sacrament, & of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament. In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Multa porrò & de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus, quem qui comederit omninò vivet in aeternu●, quem nullus mallus potest edere. Etenim si fieri possit, ut qui malus ad●●c perseveret, edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis vi●●s, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vinet in aeternum. And these things truly are spoken of the figurative or symbolical body. Many things also may be spoken of the word himself, which was made flesh and very meat, which whosoever shall eat, undoubtedly he shall live for ever, which no evil man can eat. For if it were possible that he which continueth still evil, should eat the word which is made flesh, seeing he is the word and the bread of life, it had not been written: Whosoever shall eat this bread, shall live for ever.  
The second father is Basil: de baptismo, lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Ask what shall a man say of him, who dareth in vain and unprofitably, eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord jesus Christ? To this I answer, that Basil speaketh not of wicked men, but of the faithful, in whom the spirit of God was, and yet a great work of mortification: therefore it followeth, after the words cited by Saunder, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and therefore much more giving the holy spirit. They are not wicked, in whom the holy spirit is. Therefore the adverbs, Idly and unprofitably, are not spoken simply, but comparatively, for, not so diligently as they ought, not so profitably as they might.  
The third father is Cyprian, de Coen. Domini. The sacraments for their part, cannot be without their proper virtue, neither doth God's majesty by any means absent itself, from the mysteries. But albeit the sacraments permit themselves to be taken, or touched of unworthy men, yet those men cannot be partakers of the spirit, whose infidelity or unworthiness withstandeth such holiness. This authority is flat against Saunder: the wicked may receive the Sacraments, but not the spirit of Christ, if not the spirit, than not the body, for Christ his body, is never dissevered from his spirit.  
The fourth father is Jerome: but where, he showeth not. Opponis mihi, etc. Thou layest unto me the one measure of Manna called Gomor, and we take the body of Christ equally. According to the merits of them that receive, that which is one is made diverse. etc. The Sacrament is one in itself etc. There is no question, but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament, which is called the body of Christ, but of the body of Christ in deed, they are not partakers. For it cannot, be truly said, of the natural body of Christ, that it is made diverse, but the Sacrament which is called his body, is made diverse, according to the faith or infidelity of him that receiveth it.  
Augustine is the fift witness: In Epist. 162. Tolerat etc. Our Lord himself beareth with judas, he suffereth a devil, a thieefe, and the seller of himself, to receive among the innocent disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. Nothing is our price (saith Saunder) but the body of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament be called our price, as it is called the body of Christ, for as touching that judas received not the same with the rest of the Apostles, Augustine showeth in joan. Tract. 59 Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem domini contra dominum. They did eat that bread which was the Lord, he did eat the bread of the Lord, against the Lord. What should I say more, when Saunder confesseth, that Saint Augustine saith, de civitat. Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Evil men are not to be said to eat the body of Christ. But this he shadoweth with a vain gloss, that they receive not the effect of the body of Christ, and citeth other words of August. De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo etc. Not howsoever a man eat the flesh of Christ, and drink the blood of Christ, he abideth in Christ, and Christ in him: but by a certain kind of way. As though S. Augustine said (saith he) Every way, the flesh and blood of Christ is received in the supper of our Lord. But how shamefully he belieth S. Augustine: you shall hear by his own words. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi, ut alia taceam, non possunt simul esse & membra Christi & membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicens, Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo; ostendit quid sit, non sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Neither are evil men to be said, to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ: for to speak nothing of other matters, they cannot be at once, the members of Christ, and the members of an harlot. Finally, he himself saying, (He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him) showeth what it is, not as far as a sacrament goeth, but in very deed, to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood. This saying of Augustine may serve to expound, not only what he himself, but whatsoever any other ancient Father, seemeth to say of wicked men, eating the body of Christ: namely, that they do it, Sacramento tenus, but not revera, they eat the body of Christ, as it may be eaten in an outward sacrament, but not in deed.  
The sixth witness is Gregory, in prim. reg. libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis, etc. They receive not the fruit of salvation in eating of the healthful sacrifice. Of these words, Saunder can gather nothing, but that he addeth of his own, that the healthful sacrifice, is nothing but the natural body of Christ, which Gregory neither saith, nor meaneth: but the sacrament which is healthful to them which receive it faithfully.  
The last that speaketh (for he hath six or seven more dumb names) is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquity, although it be not so great, as that we should be bound to take him, for a lawful witness, yet because he lived before the carnal eating of Christ's body was received, we will admit him. H●● compareth (saith Saunder) that man to judas, who with his sinful members, presumeth to violate illud inestimabile & inviolabile domini corpus, that inestimable, and inviolable body of our Lord. How could he violate it with his members, if no part of his body touched it? I answer, by violating the sacrament thereof, which they receive unfaithfully, and contemptuously. How can he tread under his feet the son of God, and esteem the blood, in which he was sanctified, common. etc. which never came near the one nor the other, with his body? Heb. 10.  
Let the reader judge, whether the judgement of the Fathers, doth favour Saunder, more than the Apology. If any man will see more of this controversy, he may resort to mine answer unto Heskins. lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter, to the 56.   

CAP. FOUR  
What is the true deliverance of Christ's body 
Saunder.  and blood.  
The Apology saith, that in the supper, there is truly 
Fulke.  delivered the body and blood of Christ, the flesh of the son of God, quickening our souls, the food of immortality, grace, truth, life. This doctrine, Saunder confesseth to be sound and Catholic, but out of it, he will prove the Popish real presence, and that by two arguments.  
The first reason is: Christ delivered but one thing at each time, when he said, This, and This: The Apology confesseth, that he delivered his body and blood: ergo he delivered neither bread nor wine, but in appearance, and his body and blood only in deed. I deny the Mayor, for unto the faithful (of whom the Apology speaketh) he delivered two things, of diverse natures in one sacrament, or one thing consisting of two diverse natures, the bread and wine corporally, his body and blood spiritually, as Irenaeus saith. Neither is there such force in this, and this, but that one thing of diverse natures, or two things in one mystery, may be signified thereby. When God said: This is the passover, it were a mad conclusion to say, it were no Lamb, or, This is the new Testament, therefore it is not his blood: because, This can be but one thing: Yet ' Saunder clappeth hands to his own argument. O masters, truth is strange, and by the adversaries own weapon, getteth the victory.  
His second reason is, When the body of Christ is truly delivered, it is delivered according to the truth of his own nature. The nature of a body, is to be delivered after a bodily manner: therefore the body of Christ is delivered bodily. The Mayor is false, for the body of Christ may be truly delivered, when it is delivered after a spiritual, and divine manner. For in the saying of the apology, truly is contrary to falsely, & not to spiritually. And all the Papists confess, that the body of Christ may be, & must be eaten spiritually. Which of them dare say, the body of Christ is eaten falsely, when it is eaten spiritually, or not eaten, when it is eaten spiritually, even without the sacrament? Again, if Saunder like this Mayor, I will thus infer upon it: When the body of Christ is truly delivered, it is delivered according to the truth of his own nature: But the nature of a body is to occupy but one place at once, and that to fill with his own quantity, etc. Therefore the body of Christ is so delivered, as it occupieth but one place, retaineth quantity, and all other things required in the nature of a true body. Finally, whereas Saunder in the determination of the apology, misseth quickening of our bodies, but that he is disposed to play Momus, he might have found that he misseth in the food of immortality, which toucheth our bodies as well as our souls, and more properly.   

CAP. V.  
What it is which nourisheth us in the supper of Christ. 
Saunder.   
The Apology saith: that by the partaking of the body 
Fulke.  and blood of Christ, we are nourished to immortality. Hereupon Saunder inferreth, that nourishmenr is meat really present ergo the body and blood of Christ is really present. This shallbe granted, that the body & blood of Christ, is really present with them, whom it nourisheth, understanding really, for truly and indeed, and unfeignedly. But Christ (saith Saunder) gave with his hands that which nourisheth. In proper form of speech, this is false: for he had not his natural body, and blood in his hands, but a sacrament thereof, which was a seal, and certain persuasion unto the faithful, of the performance of his promise, which was the communicating of his body and blood, which was performed after an heavenly, and spiritual manner.   

CAP. VI  
The union, which is made by eating Christ's real flesh, must 
Saunder.  needs be a natural union, before it be a mystical.  
For this natural union, he bringeth no proof, but 
Fulke.  promiseth the proof in other places following: & therefore, unto those places I defer the answer. In the mean time, it is a monstrous absurdity, that seeing the mystical union with Christ, is of all the elect that ever were, he affirmeth that it cannot be without a natural union, by eating Christ's flesh and blood, in the sacrament.   

CAP. VII.  
That the Apology speaking of the lords supper, goeth clean 
Saunder.  from the word of God.  
The words of the Apology, are these: We do acknowledge the Eucharist or the lords supper, to be a 
Fulke.  sacrament, that is to say, an evident token of the body and blood of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God (saith he) to the traditions of men. For where have you in all the scripture, that the lords supper is a sign or token of the body and blood of Christ, that is, a sacrament? And because these words are not found in the scriptures, from the beginning of the Genesis, unto the end of the Apocalypse; written in so many letters, he foameth and fretteth like a mad dog, against the authors of the Apology, for going from the word of God, to the authority of men, Augustine and Ambrose, etc. Then the which quarrels, nothing can be invented more foolish, or further from all wit, learning, and honesty. For when we appeal to the authority of the scriptures in all things, we never meant or said, that all other words should be forsaken, which are not expressed in the bible; but that no doctrine is to be credited, by what term so ever it be uttered, except the same be grounded upon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture, either expressed in plain words, or else gathered by necessary consequence. Therefore seeing the meaning of the names of sacrament, sign, or token, may necessarily be proved out of the holy scriptures, and for that cause have been taken up and used, by the ancient fathers, in the primitive Church, we use them as freely as they did, and as we use other names likewise, the meaning of which, is plain to be found in the scriptures, although the terms themselves be not: as Trinity, persons, consubstantial, etc. If Saunder durst deny the names of sacrament, sign, or token, to be agreeable to the scriptures, I would take pains to prove them: but seeing he confesseth, that they are good and lawful to be used of the supper of Christ, it were superfluous labour to travel in a needless question. Among the names, that are given to the lords supper, in the scripture: That the cup is called The new testament in the blood of Christ; and that of S. Paul the supper is called spiritual meat and spiritual drink (which last name Saunder heaping up the rest omitteth) it doth prove the names of sacrament, sign, and token, so invincibly, that we are no more afraid to use them, than any of the other expressed in plain words of the scripture. The name of sacrifice, which he enterlaceth by the way, because it is afterward more at large discussed, I omit to write of, at this time.   

CAP. VIII.  
That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught more than two sacraments. 
Saunder.   
It had been meet that a sacrament had been first defined, 
Full 〈…〉  and then this trifling should not have arisen, of the word. Saunder himself understandeth, mysterium in S. Ambrose, for a mystery, or sacrament. And in deed the Greeks call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Latins call Sacramentum. But if every mystery, shall be a Sacrament, in that sense that baptism and the lords supper are so called, there shall not be only seven Sacraments, as he would have, but more than seventy. The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery, is somtims generally taken for every secret thing, that hath an hidden understanding, so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery, and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimony, and ordination is used. De bon. Con. Cap. 24. so is oil and imposition of hands, count Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacraments. But that which Saunder doth allege out of Ambrose, is enforced: for speaking of the power which priests have to remit sins by repentance, or by baptism, he saith, unum in utroque mysterium. Sed dices quia in ●auacro operatur mysteriorum gratia, Quid in poenitentia? nun dei nomen operatur? There is one mystery in both. But thou wilt say, because in baptism the grace of the mysteries doth work, What in repentance? doth not the name of God work in these words, although he call them both mysteries? Yet he putteth a manifest difference, for in baptism he acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to work, with that visible seal: in the other, the name of god only, without a visible seal: which Saunder perceiving, and not being able to answer these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of the apology, for the number of the Sacraments flieth to the authority of the late council of Florence, not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written, who (he saith) had not the charge to reckon up how many Sacraments there are, And I say, that the seven Sacraments were not named in any session of that council, but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth, upon the sur●ised reconciliation of the Armenians, which is of small credit, the same Eugenius for his notable wickedness, being long before deposed by the council of Basil, and an other Pope being chosen in his place.   

CAP. IX.  
That the supper of our Lord is the chief Sacrament of all, but 
Saunder.  not acknowledged of the Apology, according to the word of God.  
Seeing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament 
Fulk.  above the other, and they are both a like effectual seals of the mercy of God to the salvation of his elect, there is no cause, why the Apology should acknowledge such excellency of the one above the other, as Saunder would imagine. But it is a matter of great importance with Saunder, that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacraments, whereby it is not only proved to be the worthier of the two, but also the chief of many Sacraments. The authority of Dionysius, which he voucheth, as though it were without controversy of antiquity, hath often been disproved, to be without the compass of the six hundredth years, seeing neither Eusebius, nor Hierom, nor Germadius, in their several times, did ever hear of any such books of Dionysius the Ar●opagite. S. Paul's disciple.  
But where the Apology confesseth, the lords supper to be a Sacrament, a sign, and an evident token, of the body of Christ, Saunder saith, it is constrained, to believe many unwritten verities, and will not believe that only, which is written in the scripture, of this supper, that it is the body and blood of Christ.  
Behold the vanity of this fond quarreler, because these truths are not expressed in so many Latin or English words in the scripture, therefore they be unwritten verities. The froward man himself, in the Chapter last before confessed, that mysterium in the Greek, was the same, that is called Sacramentum in Latin. If therefore the lords supper, be called in Greek mysterium, we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament. For where S. Paul saith: let a man thus esteem us, as the ministers of Christ, and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God: who doubteth but under the name of mysteries, the lords supper and baptism is comprehended? although the name of mystery, be larger in Greek, than we use the name of Sacrament in English: yet in spite of the devil, the name of mystery and Sacrament, is truly verified out of the scripture of the lords supper and baptism. Likewise the name of sign, being given by the holy ghost, usually, to other Sacraments, by analogy, must likewise appertain to this Sacrament. Goe 17. Circumcision is called the sign of the covenant, between God and the people. Likewise Exo. 12. the blood of the Paschal Lamb, is called a sign, and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the sign of circumcision, a seal of justification.  
Last of all, having found in the scriptures, the Lords supper to be a Sacrament, sign, or seal; the argument of relatives, leadeth us by the hand, to call it an evident sign, or token of the body & blood of Christ, given for us: for that is the thing signified, which is proved by these words, This is my body, which is given for you, etc. Even as the Lamb is called the passover, which was the Sacrament, sign, or evident token of the Passingover, and not the passover itself. But Saunder urgeth us to answer, whether the sign of the body, and the body itself may stand together or no? I answer him plainly, except he destroy the nature of things opposite, the sign and the thing signified, cannot stand together at one time, and in one respect: as it is unpossible, that Abraham can be the father of Isaac, and the son of Isaac also. But in diverse respects, they may stand together, as Abraham is the father of Isaac, and the son of Therah. So the bread and wine cannot be both the sign of Christ's natural body and blood given for us, and the very same natural body itself. But as it is a divine mystery, and heavenly seal, it is truly called that, whereof it maketh assurance, namely, the body and blood of Christ, even as the cup is called the new testament, whereof it is a seal and assurance, and as baptism is called regeneration, being a seal and assurance thereof unto the children of God.   

CHAP. X.  
That the supper of our Lord, is both the sign of Christ's body, 
Saunder.  and also his true body, even as it is a sacrament.  
He requireth diligent ear, as though he had found out a great argument for his cause, when in deed, it overthroweth 
Fulk.  himself altogether. For he will show, that such a sign as belongeth to Christ's institution, must needs have the same truth present, whereof it is the sacrament. Which being granted, it proveth no more the truth present in the one sacrament, then in the other, seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ (saith he) cannot institute a false sign or token. I say so also: and withal I say, that seeing God instituted all the Sacraments of the old Testament, which were signs and tokens of Christ, Christ was truly present in them, even as truly as in our Sacraments: and therefore Saint Paul teacheth, that Our fathers did drink of the same spiritual drink, that we do; for they drank of the spiritual rock, which rock was Christ. If Saunder could content himself with such truth and presence of Christ, as he doth exhibit in baptism, and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the old testament, which were of his institution, we might soon be agreed. But in the mean time, you see him overthrown in his own argument. Other matters, not incident to the present controversy, I omit, as that the holy ghost in baptism, at the same instant doth wash the soul from sin, as though the effect of baptism extended no farther, then to the time of washing with water. Likewise, that the outward pronouncing of the words over the bread and wine, is the Sacrament. Whereby it followeth, that when the sound of the words is once past, it is no longer a Sacrament, and consequently, the Papists must not call that which they worship, the Sacrament of the altar. etc.   

CAP. XI.  
What sign must chiefly be respected in the Sacrament of 
Saunder.  Christ's supper, and what a Sacrament is.  
There be (if we believe Saunder) four kind of signs 
Fulk.  in the Sacrament of the altar. The first be tokens making & consecrating the Eucharist, which are the words of consecration: the second, be signs of it made, which are the accidents of bread & wine. The third, a signification of the Church. And the fourth eating, is a sign of a marvelous banquet in the life to come. Of these four, the first must be chief respected, which is an outward token of an inward truth: the outward token, is called the Sacrament: the inward truth is called the thing of the sacrament, whereupon the definition of a sacrament alleged by Gratian out of S. Augustine, is this: A Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace. Out of this definition, which employeth two parts of a Sacrament, he will prove the truth of the real presence: for if the body be not present (saith he) the words make a false token. I deny the consequence, for the words make a true token, and yet the body is not present, after his gross imagination of bodily manner of presence. His exemplification of the order of priesthood, given to the Apostles by these words, Hoc facite, do and make this, is to make a proof of one controversy by another. For we deny the power of making, which he pretendeth there to be given, affirming, that it is a commandment to continue that sacrament of his institution, and showing the use thereof.  
His second argument is, that Christ spoke not figuratively, because a figurative speech can signify no certain thing, until it be plainly understanded. This I deny: for a figurative speech may signify one certain thing, which the speaker meaneth, although the hearer understand it not at all. Howbeit that which Christ did here speak figuratively, was easily understood of all his hearers, which were well accustomed to such kind of speeches. But Saunder replieth, that the Apostles were simple men & Idiots, and understood not the scriptures: therefore they could not understand how the sign might be called by the name of the thing. I answer, although they were simple unlearned men in deed, and such as understood not the scriptures, in such full measure as was necessary for them to discharge so great an office, as was laid upon them: yet Saunder doth them too much wrong, to make them, or any godly person of that time, so ignorant in the scriptures, that they understood not the nature of a Sacrament, considering they were circumcised, & did celebrate the passover every year, the very name whereof must needs teach them, how the sign may be called by the thing signified. And therefore it is out of measure ridiculous & foolish, that Saunder prateth of the true & first meaning of the words of Christ. For what will the vain jangler make to be the true and first meaning of these words of Christ, This cup is the new Testament? What verifying of contradictories, what divers soundings? what true tokens, what things present? O great divinity of Popish doctors.  
But the Apology is confuted by his own saying, when he calleth the Eucharist an evident token of the body and blood: if it be evident (saith he,) it is quickly understood. Call women and children, and ask them what token the words of Christ make. Nay, rather call Turks & Saracens, and ask the question, if it must be evident to them unto whom the mystery is not revealed. The token is evident to them that are instructed, not to such as never heard of it, as belike, where Saunder hath to do, women and children are. But God be thanked, women and children instructed in the Church of Christ, can tell him how evident a token it is, of their spiritual feeding, on the body and blood of Christ.  
But that words must be taken as they commonly sound, he will prove by the institution of the sacrament of Penance, as he termeth it, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, etc. where, as much is given, as is signified by the words. If this be true, all cases reserved, both episcopal and Papal, are in case to be forgiven, by every priest of the lowest degree. But here the Apology, which denieth the Sacrament of Penance, is charged to have falsified the words of Christ, saying, they are meant, whose sins you declare to be forgiven. If the Apology do not truly expound the words of Christ, yet doth it not falsify them, except Saunder will say, that every wrong exposition is a falsification. How Christ's words are to be taken, as Saunder will not dispute in this place, so neither will I stand here to discuss. But this is a bold determination of him, that many words may signify unproperly in other places, but the principal words of a Sacrament, cannot be unproper. For the nature of the thing, doth limit the interpretation of the words. If this doctoral determination be true, than these are proper speeches, The rock is Christ, the Lamb is the passover: the cup is the new Testament, baptism is the laver of regeneration.  
And S. Augustine's rule, De doct, Christ, lib. 3. Ca 16. must give place to D. Sanders decree: Si autem flagi●iis, etc. If the words of scripture seem to command any wicked nor ungodly act, or to forbid any profit or well doing, it is a figure: Except ye shall eat (saith he) the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, it seemeth to command a wicked or heinous act. Therefore it is a figure, commanding us to communicate with the lords passion, and profitable to keep in remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Again, Locut. de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt, non dixit tres dies significant. Et multum haec locutio notanda est, ubi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur. Ind est quod ait Apostolus, Petra autem erat Christus, non ait Petra significabat Christum. Three basketes are three days, he said not, they signify three days. And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying things, are called by the names of those things which they do signify. Hereof it is, that the Apostle saith, And the rock was Christ, he saith not, the Rock did signify Christ.  
Finally, where Saunder saith, it is against the nature of a Sacrament, not to signify plainly, I agree with him, affirming that the bread and wine, which is eaten and drunken, do plainly signify, that we are fed spiritually, with the very body and blood of Christ, unto the full assurance of our perseverance, & continuance in the favour of God, even until we be put in possession of eternal life, and the words in this Sacrament, be as plain as in the other, but the devil to advance the kingdom of Antichrist, hath devised a monstrous interpretation of them, to make a most abominable Idol of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christ's death and passion.   

CAP. XII.  
Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God: it is 
Saunder.  a token of the body, made by Christ, and therefore not the body, or else, therefore it is the true body of Christ.  
Saunder, to dispute for his life, would take the conclusion 
Fulk.  thus: it is a sign of his body, therefore it is his body in deed. So that Saunder to dispute for his life, would overthrow the nature of opposites, which cannot stand both together at one time, and in one respect. But as though Logic were contrary to the word of God, he will have the argument tried by the word of God. And first he rejecteth the Sacraments instituted before the incarnation of Christ, which he saith, were signs in part empty and void of the truth, which they signified, because truth is made by jesus Christ. As though jesus Christ concerning the truth of doctrine, and the grace of salvation, were not yesterday and to day the same, & for evermore, the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, Hebr. 13. Apocalypse. 13. Secondly, he bringeth examples of the Angel speaking to Marie of Christ, speaking to the leprous man, to him that had the palsy, to the disciples of john baptist, to the dumb man; to prove, that when at the doing of any thing, an outward sign of an inward grace is rehearsed, that which the sign soundeth, the grace worketh.  
When Saunder shall dispute for his life, he must choose him an easy adversary, for else he will soon lose his life, for lack of good arguments, if he escape hanging, drawing, and quartering for treason. Except he think there be any children among us, brought up in their Catechism, that be so ignorant, to think the words of Christ intending to work a particular miracle, be signs & Sacraments, in the same nature, that bread & wine is, being appointed by him, to be an ordinary pledge & assurance of his grace, unto his whole church. Again, we deny, that the words of Christ are the Sacrament, but we say with Augustine: Accedat verbum ad elementum: Let the word come to the element, and then it is made a Sacrament. Last of all, concerning the truth of Christ's words: This is my body: This cup is the New testament, etc. we nothing doubt, but that grace in Gods elect, worketh that which the words soundeth, according to the true meaning of them.  
But if Saunder could have made his matter good, he should have reasoned of the water of baptism, which is a sign of regeneration, and if he could prove, that the water in baptism is not water, but regeneration in deed, because it is a token of regeneration, he should have reasoned somewhat like, for his life. But that which he saith of doing or making, he would not have it wrested to the mere doctrine of Christ, which he spoke doing or making nothing: for therein he used parables, but Christ (saith he) did, rather than taught in his supper; and therefore, his words must be understood even as they sound. If this rule be true, Christ drank and gave wine at his supper, which is the fruit of the vine, according to the sound of the words, and therefore no transubstantiation in the cup. But where he saith, that Christ did, rather than taught at his supper, he would have us think, belike, that Christ did celebrate his supper, like the Popish Mass, in which is much ado, & no teaching at all. But beside that, all the three Evangelists, do set forth unto us, the sum of his doctrine. S. john doth in four Chapters, from the 13. to the 18. describe at large, that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing. You have heard how Saunder would dispute for his life.   

CAP. XIII.  
The words of Christ's supper, are not figurative; nor his token, 
Saunder,  a common kind of tokens.  
The first part of this title, that the words of Christ's supper, arenot figurative, he proveth not by any one 
Fulke  word, & as for the other part, that Christ's token is not a common kind of token, which he proveth somewhat at large, he needed not to have proved at al. For it is confessed of us, that the sacrament is a more excellent token, then can be ordained by any man. And where he saith, that none of the fathers teacheth, that these words: This is my body, etc. be words figurative, it shall suffice, to oppose Augustine, who in plain terms saith these words: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. are a figurative speech. Which words notwithstanding, among the Papists, have the same sense, that these words: This is my bo De Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the words are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine mean, when he sayeth, Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fideifides est. Therefore as after a certain manner, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith (meaning baptism) is faith. Epist. 23. Bonisacio. Is it not manifest, that he meaneth the one is a figurative speech, as well as the other? Fie upon this impudent boasting of the Papists, which care not what lies they make, so they give not place to the truth. As for the sayings of Cyprian, Chrysostom, Basil, etc. or any of the ancient Catholic fathers, concerning the wonderful manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, do all prove a spiritual and divine manner of eating and drinking the body of Christ, as in their proper places shallbe severally declared.   

CAP. XIIII.  
That the supper of our Lord is no sacrament at all, if these 
Saunder.  words of Christ (This is my body, and this is my blood) be figurative.  
Two leaves and an half of this Chapter are spent, 
Fulke.  to show the difference between figures of Rhetoric and sacramental figures, and that words must be joined to the elements to make sacraments: all which is needless, for it is commonly known, and confessed on both parts: saving that he would make ignorant Papists believe, that Oecolampadius, Caluine or Peter Martyr, when they read in Tertullian, & in Augustine, these words of Christ, This is my body, to be so expounded, that is to say a figure or sign of my body, they should understand a figure of Rhetoric as Metonymia, or Synecdoche, and not a sacramental token. No, master Saunder, they were not so young Grammarians, or Rhetoricians, as you would bear fools in hand, but they could understand the difference of a rhetorical, and a sacramental figure, although they could tell that a rhetorical figure is used, when a sacramental token is spoken off, as in so many examples of the scripture, they have showed. But now let us see, what main argument you have, to prove that the supper is no sacrament, if the words (This is my body, etc.) be figurative. The words, say you, do not signify a figure of his body, therefore either they work his body, or they make nothing at al. I answer with Tertull. & August. The words do signify a figure of his body. For so do they expound the words. This is my body, that is to say, a figure or sign of my body, which their exposition, were false, except those words This is my body, do signify a figure or sign of his body. Therefore Master Saunder, you may teach boys, that body signifieth a substance and not a figure. Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so answered at your hands. They tell you that the interpretation of Christ's words is such, as proveth his speech to be figurative, in spite of your heart. And that every boy, that readeth this chapter, may laugh at your arrogant impudence, I set down once again these words of Christ: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which if they be not confessed of you, to be figurative, you will not confess that fire is hot, nor water moist: If they be figurative, what Sacrament will be made with them? Where you tell us, that the body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, is a figure of the same body walking on earth, suffering on the cross, or sitting in heaven, you do as much, as if you would teach us, that Abraham sitting close in his tent, so that no man could see him, was father of the same Abraham himself, as he was the son Therah, & came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees, and as he begat Isaac in the land of Canaan, and as he is now at rest with God in heaven. When you can persuade us, I say, that one man can be father and son of himself, then will we believe you, that a figure, and the thing figured, be all one.   

CAP. XV.  
The real presence of Christ's body is that, which setteth his death 
Saunder.  and life before us.  
The eating of common bread (saith Saunder in answer to 
Fulke.  the Apology) and drinking of common wine, is but a homely manner of setting the death, and resurrection, and life of Christ before our eyes. But if the bread and wine be turned into the same body and blood of Christ, which died, rose again, and wrought all the miracles in the world: then is the death, resurrection, and conversation of Christ, in deed set before the eyes of our faith. Is not this an absolute answer, to tell us of the eating and drinking of common bread and wine, when the Apology speaketh of the eucharist, which as justinus saith, we have learned to be common bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ, that was incarnated for us. Confessing thus much, what need hath our faith of transubstantiation of bread and wine, into his body and blood, more than of water into the holy ghost in baptism? Tush (saith Saunder) all other ways of setting the death, resurrection and conversation of Christ before our eyes, without the real presence, is painting and shadowing in comparing of this lively representation. If this be true preaching of the death of Christ, by which he is even crucified among us, as S. Paul saith, Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing: the ministration of baptism, by which we are ingaffed into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Saunder, and no lively representation. But what affinity (saith he) hath bread and wine, with the death and resurrection of Christ? I will ask him like wise what affinity hath water with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? which is not nakedly represented, but so as we are engraffed into them by baptism. Rom. 6.  
By this profane question you may see what faith he meaneth, when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes, namely an historical faith, which because it is common to true Christians, with devils, is not the faith, that we come to feed upon in these divine mysteries. But such a faith as applieth to our own comfort, the effect and fruit of the death, resurrection and conversation of Christ, with the which, the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinity, as things corporal can have with things spiritual, teaching that the most necessary and only sufficient nourishment of our souls, is received by faith, even as the outward signs thereof are taken with the body Yet Chrysostom saith Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis. Thou seest himself, thou touchest himself, thou eatest himself. See (saith Saunder) whether the Apology do more truly teach, that the sign or token without the real presence, or the body itself present, doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then hear Chrysostom in the same homely, speaking of the Eucharistye. Si mortuu● jesus non est, Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quantum ei studium fuerit, ut semper memoria teneamus pr● nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse. If the jesus hath not died (as some heretics affirm) whose token and sign is this sacrifice? Thou seest how great desire he had, that we should always keep in remembrance that he hath died for us. But I know he will press the former words, thou seest himself &c. therefore not a sign, without the real presence. But seeing the real presence whereof he speaketh, by his own judgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiation, if transubstantiation be not that real presence which he holdeth is not. And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ, Chrysostom telleth us plainly, Quando hoc mysterium tradidit, vinum tradidit, when he delivered this mystery or sacrament, he delivered wine. And this saith Chrysostom against them that used to celebrate with water. But to help out transubstantiation, he bringeth in Damascen a writer, out of the compass of the challenge, which saith De ortho. fid. lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud 〈◊〉 coelo descendat, sed quia panis & vinum in Christi corpus & sanguinem transmutatur. Not as though the body of Christ cam● down from heaven, but because the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much, with the word of changing, as he hindereth you with denying the coming down of the body of Christ except you say, it is every where. And therefore advise yourself, what presence and manner of change Damascene speaketh of, when the body of Christ cometh not out of heaven into the priests hands. But Cyrillus (saith he) teacheth, That we touch the body of Christ when we come to the holy communion, even as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ, when he cried out, My Lord and my God. So we touch that flesh, when we touch the form of bread, as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead, when he touched the flesh of Christ. For in each place, we touch not either the Godhead, or the flesh visibly. These are high points of Metaphysike, Master Saunder, to touch the godhead, which is insensible, and to touch visibly, or invisibly, except you mean by touching not visibly, to touch that which we see not as we may handle a thing in the dark, which we see not. But howsoever you would cloak the matter by leaving out the words of Cyril, he saith, that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visibly. Where is then your distinction of visible and invisible presence? nay where is your carnal presence become, which you ground upon touching, when he is none otherwise present to be touched, than he is present to be seen, and so saith Chrysostom also in the place by you cited, Thou seest himself, thou touchest himself, thou ●atest himselft, If Christ be none otherwise eaten, than he is seen, and is not seen, but by faith, it will follow that he is not eaten, but by faith. And now let us hear Cyrillus, beginning one sentence before Sand. was disposed to hear him speak. I n joan. lib. 12. cap. 58 I● reigitur sanctae congregationes die octa●o in eccles●●s fiunt, foribus sublimiore modo clausis, visibiliter simul atque invisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet: invisibiliter quidem ut Deus, visibiliter autem in corpore. Pr●bet enim nobis carnem svam tangendam. v● firmiter credamus, quia templum verè suum suscitavit. Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio, resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est, verbis ipsius probatur. Fractum enim panem distribuebat, dicens: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Participatio igitur mysterii, vera quaedam confessio & commemoratio est, quod propter nos & pro nobis, dominus & mortuus sit, & revixerit, & divina nos benedictionem propter hoc replet. Fugiamus igitur infidelitatem post tactum Christi, & firmi atque stabiles ab omni longè ambiguitate inveniamur. Worthily therefore the holy congregations are made in the Churches on the eight day, and the doors being shut after an high manner, Christ appeareth to us all, both visibly, and invisibly. Invisibly truly as God: but visibly in his body. For he giveth us his flesh to be touched, that we might believe assuredly, that he hath truly raised up his temple. For that the communion of the mystical blessing is a certain confession of the resurrection of Christ, it is proved by his own words For he distributed the bread after it was broken, saying: This is my body, which shallbe delivered for you, for the remission of sins, Do this for the remembrance of me. Therefore the participation of the mystery, is a certain true confession and commemoration that for our sakes, and for us, our Lord both hath died and is revived, and through that, filleth us with divine blessings. Let us therefore flee infidelity, after the touching of Christ, and let us be found steadfast and strong, being far from all doubtfulness. You see both Chrysostom and cyril agree that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament, as they agree that he is touched. And as Chrysostom affirmed, that Christ gave wine, so cyril affirmeth that he distributed bread. By both which confessions, it appeareth, that bread and wine, and not the shapes of bread and wine, are given in the sacrament, and that the body and blood of Christ is visibly present, which cannot be undestoode of the Popish presence, and therefore of necessity must be meant of a spiritual manner of presence, which is seen only by faith.   

CAP. XVI.  
Our thanksgiving and remembrance of Christ's death, is alsogether 
Saunder.  by the real presence of his body.  
I have often showed, what manner of presence we allow, 
Fulke.  agreeable to the scriptures, and the judgement of the ancient fathers. But that will not satisfy Saunder, except he have a making of Christ's body, which making, he saith, is the thanksgiving for his death. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing, making by his judgement, pertaineth only to the priests, that thanksgiving also pertaineth only to the Priests. But Chrysostom (whom he citeth) maketh thanksgiving common to all the faithful, Ipso genere sacrificii, etc. By the very kind of sacrifice, inviting us to thanksgiving for his benefits. And by the way, Chrysostom teacheth, what kind of sacrifice the celebration of the communion is accounted of him: Namely, a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of reconciliation. And therefore he writeth in the same Hom. 26. in Matth. Propterea & reverenda & salutaria illa mysteria, qu● omni certè ecclesiae congregatione celebramus, Eucharistia, id est gratiarum actio nuncupantur. Sunt enim beneficiorum recordatio plurimorum, capútque ipsum divine erga nos charitatis ostendunt, nosque faciunt debitas Deo gratias semper exoluere. Therefore even those reverend and healthful mysteries, which truly we celebrate in every congregation of the Church, are called Eucharistia, that is a thanksgiving. For they are a calling to mind of many benefits, and show unto us the very head of the love of God toward us, and make us to yield dew thanks to God always. But to a Christian, saith Chrysostom, He himself is set before thee daily, lest thou should be unmindful. Behold (saith Saunder) not by a feeble token doubtfully, but by his own presence he is called to mind. Note here that he calleth it a feeble token, where Christ is bodily absent, by which it should follow, that baptism is but a feeble token, where Christ is not bodily present. But Christ is present in both his sacraments, although he be absent bodily: and so meaneth Chrysostom that he is present spiritually. For in the same Hom. 51. in Mat. he saith, Ipsum enim si volumus, non vestis solùm sed corpus ipsius nobis propositum est, non ut tangamus solummodò, sed ut comedamus & saturemur. For not only his garment, but his body is set before us, not only that we may touch him, if we will, but also that we may eat him and be satisfied. Mark in these words, after what manner the body of Christ is set before us, to be touched and eaten: verily even as his garment is set before us to be touched. But no man will say, that the garment of Christ is otherwise set before us, then after a spiritual manner: no more verily is the body of Christ.   

CAP. XVII.  
The true resurrection of our bodies, cometh by eating 
Saunder.  that body of Christ, which is both true, and is true in us.  
This is confessed by the Apology, that the resurrection 
Fulke.  of our bodies to glory, cometh by the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ: but that this eating and drinking, may be without the Sacrament, it is manifest by this, that many shall be partakers of the glorious resurrection, which did never eat this Sacrament. But now let us see, what vain reasons Saunder bringeth, to prove that the resurrection of our bodies cometh by eating of Christ in the Sacrament only. First Christ prepared a supper, and set it forth upon his table, but the bread and wine was prepared by the baker and the vintner: therefore Christ's preparing was to make of earthly bread the bread of everlasting life, which was his body that he delivered, and they received.  
All this we confess. Yea saith Saunder, but he delivered it with his own hands, or else doubtless they did not eat his body. But where is the necessity of this consequence? For he said in respect only of that which he delivered, Take and eat. Yea sir, but how prove you, that he delivered only with his hands, that he delivered, and whereof he said, take and eat? Is there nothing delivered in baptism, but the water which is in the hand of the minister or in the font? The only proof he bringeth, is Chrysostom, Hom. 82. in Math. where there is no such words at all to be found, yet thus he citeth them: Cogita quid manu capias, Bethink thyself what thou takes● in thy hand, and keep it from all covetousness and violent robbery: consider again, that thou tak'st it not only in thy hand, but also puttest it to thy mouth, and after thy hand and tongue, thy heart receiveth that dreadful mystery. Here (saith Saunder) the hand and tongue, receive the same body, that the heart doth. And yet Chrysostom (if ever he have such a context) nameth not the body, but the mysteries. It is one thing to receive the mysteries, another thing to receive the body in such manner as the Papists do teach. And Chrysostom using the same words, but not in such context, ad Pop. Antiochen. Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, the tongue died purple with such blood, and made a golden sword. Likewise the eyes, by which thou hast seen the secrets and dreadful mysteries: which sayings do show, that he spoke not of a bodily presence, or receiving, but of a spiritual receipt and faith, by which we see Christ present, and acknowledge our tongue to be died purple with his blood, and to be made a golden sword, which is not done corporally, but spiritually.  
The last argument is, that the lords supper hath been of old time called the Sacrament of the Altar, by which (saith he) we are informed, that the sacrifice is made upon a visible Altar, or table, and so S. Augustine's mother confessed, that from the altar was dispensed, that holy sacrifice, whereby the handwriting that was contrary to us, hath been put out. And we do likewise confess, that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion, the sacrifice of Christ's death and passion, by which only, that handwriting was put out, and nailed on the cross, except you think S. Augustine's mother was of another opinion, then S. Paul. Col. 2. v. 14. We confess, that regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy font of Baptism, and yet it followeth not, that the holy ghost is contained in the font, or water: no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christ's death from the table, prove that Christ's body lieth upon the table. The argument of the resurrection of our bodies, which Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyril do gather of receiving of the Sacrament, is from the sign to the thing signified: and therefore Tertullian maketh the same argument, from the washing of baptism, and from other ceremonies of anointing, signing, and laying on of hands, lib. de resurrectione carnis. Caro abluitur, ut anima ema●●litur etc. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed. The flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is signed, that the soul may be defended. The flesh is shadowed by laying on of hands, that the soul may be lightened of the spirit. The flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be made fa●t of God. What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last, more than in all the rest? The flesh is washed with water, anointed with oil, shadowed with men's hands, signed with men's hands: therefore the flesh is fed with bread and wine, which Saunder maketh such a dangerous matter, yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus, cyril, and justinus Martyr.   

CAP. XVIII.  
Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to th● 
Saunder.  doctrine of the Sacramentaries.  
We abase not the supper of the Lord (saith the Apology) 
Fulke.  or teach that it is but a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein, as many do falsely slander us. Yes (saith Saunder) you pluck down Altars, etc. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar, by vile names, &c: I answer, we pluck down none, but Idolatrous altars, neither give we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ, but to the stinking Idol of the Papists, which is no sacrament, but a profane execrament, we call not the honour done to Christ's body, worshipping of bread, for that which the Papists worship, is not Christ's body, but vile bread, although they call it Christ's body. And when we teach, that Christ giveth us in his supper, an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him, and conjunction spiritual with him, we teach a work of Christ in the supper. But you teach not (saith Saunder) that any substantial thing is wrought in the bread and wine. In deed we teach no change of the substance of bread and wine, but that they remain in their former nature and substance, but we teach a supersubstantial thing to be wrought by Christ's word, which being joined to bread and wine, maketh of earthly and bodily nourishment, heavenly and spiritual food, to feed both body and soul unto everlasting life. And this is sufficient to prove, that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine, babble Saunder what he will to the contrary, although no transubstantiation be wrought, except he will say, that nothing is wrought in baptism, because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them, or us in our doctrine of baptism.   

CAP. XIX.  
The real presence of Christ● flesh is proved by the express naming 
Saunder.  of flesh, blood, and body, which are names of his human nature.  
Saunder would bear men in hand that there is great 
Fulke,  fraud hidden in these words, when the Apology saith: that we affirm that Christ doth truly and presently give his own self in his Sacraments, in baptism, that we may put him on, in his supper▪ that we may eat him by faith and spirit. For by these words, His own self, his own self, his own self, so often repeated, they mean no more than the coming of his grace and charity into our souls, by faith, spirit, and understanding, wholly robbing us of that flesh which died for us, and of that blood which was shed for us. If we did never use the names of giving his body, his flesh, his blood, we might perhaps come in suspicion of Mani●heisme: but when we use these names, and the other of Christ, giving himself, and us eating of Christ, which the Scripture doth affirm, as well as the other, none but a peevish wrangler, would take exceptions to our terms. Of the two natures in one person Christ, there need to be no question, but that Saunder, by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures, would by authority of one Saint Germanus, I cannot tell whence he came (for the Louanists are great coiners of antiquities) teach us that these words of Christ, Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the end of the world, may be meant as well by the nature of manhood, which we have with his godhead in the Sacrament, as by the only nature of the godhead: and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poor you shall have always with you, me ye shall not have always. By the word Me, he meaneth not his godhead, but the nature of his manhood, as it was when he spoke in a visible form of a poor man, but not as it is in the Sacrament. What, Master Saunder? think you to play bopeep with the nature of manhood, in form visible and not visible? Is not the nature of Christ's manhood, the same whether it be in form visible or invisible? If it be the same, and the nature of the manhood is simply denied to be present, how can you make the same nature that is absent to be present, unless you will say, this word Me signifieth neither his Godhead, nor the nature of his manhood, nor both together, but the visible form of a poor man? Fie on these beggarly shifts, too bad for boys to use in their sophisms. S. Augustine is a clear witness against you for understanding of both the texts. Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui. Nam secundum maiestatem suam, secundum providentiam, secundum ineffabiiem & invisibilem gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum, omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. Secundum carnem verò, quam v●rbum assumpsit, secundum quod de virgine natus est, secundum id quod a judaeis prehensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutu●, quoth in sepulchro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis, & eye deducentibus videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim, sedet ad dextram patris & hîc est, non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis. Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum: secundum praesentiam carnis, rectè dictum est discipulis: me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus, modo fide tenet, oculis non videt.  
He spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his majesty, according to his providence, according to his unspeakable and invisible grace, it is fulfilled which was said of him: Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. But according to that flesh, which the word took upon him: according to that he was borne of a virgin, according to that he was taken of the jews, that he was crucified on the tree, that he was taken down from the cross, that he was wrapped in linen clothes, that he was laid in the sepulchre, that he was manifested in his resurrection, you shall not always have him with you. Wherefore? Because he was conversant with his disciples 40. days, according to the presence of his body, and they bringing him on his way by seeing, not by following, he went up into heaven, & is not here: For he is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father, and he is here, for he departed not in presence of his majesty. Otherwise according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said unto the disciples, but me you shall not always have. For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a few days, now she holdeth him by faith, she seethe him not with eyes. In joan. 12. Tr. 50.  
But to return to Saunder, it is the flesh and blood of Christ which worketh our salvation (saith he) and we say no less, if the material cause may be called a working. He that taketh this from the Sacrament, depriveth us of the mean to come to eternal salvation, saith Saunder. This I deny, for he that should take away the San crament, cannot deprive us of the mean to come by eternal life. Yes (saith Saunder) for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and blood, is applied to all that be of a lawful age, by worthy eating and drinking thereof. But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawful age, or that eat it worthily? Christ speaketh generally and absolutely, of both. And why should we think, there is any other mean to apply the redemption purchased by the flesh and blood of Christ for us, than was for the fathers, as before Christ came in the flesh? Faith was the only mean unto them, and the Sacraments were the seals of their faith: What other means need we to attain to the same salvation? He saith, when the flesh of Christ was crucified, the soul of Christ delivered the soul of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison. But where findeth he, that Abraham and the fathers were in prison, until that time. We find before that time, that Abraham was in so happy estate, that his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for all his faithful children. Luc. 16.  
But to end the matter so evil favouredly begun, Saunder saith, that Christ to show that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhood, for that cause named not his person, but his flesh, his body, his blood; and Saint Paul nameth; his bones. And therefore mark this again and again, believe thou ●he presence of body, blood, of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh. Mark you Papists, mark again, and again, Saunder saith, he named his flesh, body & blood, because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood, ergo it is true. S. Paul saith that every true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world, is a member of Christ's body and of his flesh, and of his bones, ergo believe thou the presence of Christ's body, flesh and bones in the Sacrament. Verily we believe pledge and assurance of this communication & union with Christ, to be given us in the Sacrament; but in such manner as it was given to all the faithful before the incarnation of Christ, who were likewise members of Christ's body, of his flesh, and of his bones: but such a monstrous presence, as the Papists do imagine, as we know it to be needles, so we affirm it to be against all such places of the scripture, as teach us the truth of Christ's humane nature, to be like unto us in all things except sin. Heb. 2.   

CHAP. XX.  
It is a cold supper which the Sacramentaries assign to Christ, 
Saunder.  in comparison of his true supper.  
The eating of Christ by faith and spirit, which we 
Fulke.  affirm, Saunder confesseth to be no sleight or cold thing, but to say that no more is done in his supper, that is slightly and coldly said. Why so Master Saunder? Partly (he saith) because it may be done without the supper. And is it therefore a cold supper? Because a man may eat at dinner the same meat which he eateth at supper, doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper? may not his supper, be as warm as his dinner? Alas this is a cold reason partly, it is a cold thing to call men, who consist of bodies, to a supper of Christ's making, and to give their bodies none other meat, then corruptible bread and wine, whereas Christ did forbid us to work the perishing meat, at his banquet. You might likewise say, it is a cold bath, to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration, and to give their bodies nothing but cold water, whereas the holy ghost saith, the washing of the filthiness of the flesh saveth us not, 1. Pet. 3. or else Saunder maketh another cold & wretched reason, we call men to that supper, wherein Christ being received by faith, dwelleth in us by his spirit, & we are fed unto the salvation, both of body and soul. Last of all how can it be called the supper of Christ, which every man may make at home without coming to the table of Christ? For every man may eat bread and drink wine, at his own house, with his wife and children, and remember that Christ died for them, neither will Christ leave his good devotion unrewarded, wherein the supper that you assign to Christ, consisteth and is fulfilled. Beside the shameless slander, that our supper is fulfilled in such a private presumptuous act, mark how he alloweth, the sacrilegious arrogance of him, ' that should usurp (if any were so mad to do, as he is to imagine) such a ridiculous counterfeiting and mocking of Christ's institution: he doth assure him that Christ will not leave his good devotion unrewarded. But this is but a cold assurance. Like as it is but a cold preparation, which is made by transubstantiation, whereby after so great broiling, roasting, and saucing, to compass such cookery as Saunder taught us in the first book Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought, as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithful man, then to an infidel, than to a dog, a cat or a rat. Alas that is a cold presence, & a cold body, that is without efficay of spirit and life, in them which receive it. But certainly the flesh and blood of Christ, is of another nature, where it is received by faith, which is able to warm the stomach of a penitent sinner, whose heart was cold, for fear of God's justice, and punishment dew for his sins. And when Saunder hath prated never so hotly, and reasoned never so coldly, it will be but a cold comfort, that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence, except he borrow the chafing-dish of faith and spiritual eating to warm it: which though he confess, that we acknowledge, yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a cold supper, whereas by his own confession, there is no heat in his fantasied presence, without faith and spiritual feeding: and faith and spiritual eating is a good warm recreation, even without the Sacrament.   

CAP. XXI.  
By eating, we touch the body of Christ, as it may be touched under 
Saunder.  the form of bread.  
That is (sayeth Saunder) as we are truly said to kiss 
Fulke.  the kings knee, when we kiss his hose, under which the knee is contained. But that is not properly to kiss the kings knee, which is to kiss his hose: for kiss, and not kiss, as I take it, be contradictories. But who can devise an eating of meat in a supper, which shallbe without touching the meat with teeth and mouth? (saith Saunder) Christ sayeth, my meat is, to do the will of my father that sent me john. 4.  
And he promiseth his Apostles, that they shall eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. Luc. 22. This eating and drinking, is without teeth or mouth. And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ, sayeth: Vt quid par as dentes & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eat it. In joan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Again, Panis quip iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem. For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man. Tr. 26.  
And upon these words: If any man shall eat of it, he shall not die. Sed qui pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentum. Qui manducat intus, non foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. But he which pertaineth to the virtue of the sacrament, not he which pertaineth to y● visible Sacrament. He which eateth within, not without; which eateth in his heart, not he which presseth with his teeth. Likewise, Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sy●●●ra panem sanctum frangimus & partimur. As often as we do these things, we do not whet our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we break and divide that holy bread. Thus you may see, how we may eat that which we touch not with teeth and mouth. And whereas Chrysostom and cyril, as we heard before, said that Christ giveth his flesh to be touched, they speak improperly, and mean a touching by the mouth of faith, like as they affirm also, that he giveth himself to be seen, which is not but with the eye of faith. And it is strange, that Saunder dare not as well say, We see him, as, we may see him, under the form of bread: as that we touch him under the form of bread: but the matter is, that then he should destroy his doughty distinction of the bodily presence visible and invisible. Although Cyrillus, as is showed before, affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body. Touching by belief, Saunder will not deny at length, although in the beginning, he marveled how touching could be without the mouth & teeth, but that touching by belief, he sayeth, is furthered by touching that visibly, wherein we believe the flesh of Christ to be invisibly. A sorry furthering, by touching a bare accident of that which is not there, nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there. But how much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith, to eat substantially, that which is God's seal and assurance of that food which nourisheth both bodies and souls unto everlasting life?  
It is an old custom of heretics (he saith) by assertion of one truth, to imbar and stop another truth: but so do not we, for we bar not any truth that is admitted by the Scriptures: but it is a custom of the devil to be enemy to all truth, whom the Papists follow in this their heresy of transubstantiation, denying the bread and wine to be in the Sacrament, whereas they be in deed, and affirming the natural body of Christ to be substantially contained under the accidents of bread and wine, even in the mouth of wicked men, & of brute beasts, which is both false and blasphemous.   

CAP. XXII.  
The Sacramentaries have neither understanding, nor saith, 
Saunder.  nor spirit, nor devotion to receive Christ withal.  
We have no understanding (he saith) because we say, This is my body, doth not mean, this is my body. Yes 
Fulke.  sir Sophister, we say the words to mean his body, after a certain manner, as Augustine saith, although not after your gross manner. And how do you understand these words spoken of the other part of the Sacrament? This cup is the new Testament in my blood. Will you not say in some sense, it is not the new testament? Secondly, ye have no faith, that believe not the working and effectual words of Christ, which were spoken with blessing. Yes forsooth sir, we believe they wrought and brought to effect, whatsoever it pleased him to do by them. Thirdly, we have no spirit, in Sanders corporal judgement, when we know not the words of Christ to be spirit and life, as the which make all that they said in the consecration of his holy mysteries: but we acknowledge his words to be spirit & life, because he never giveth his flesh, but with effect of his quickening spirit. And that is a gross spirit, and a deadly life, which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth, for then the cup should be made blood, and the new testament in his blood. What is, They are spirit and life, saith Augustine? in joan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt: they are to be understood spiritually, therefore not according to the sound of words, but according to the mind of the speaker.  
It is cold devotion (saith Saunder) that hearing the body of Christ, by himself affirmed to be present, can eat without adoring, and deny godly honour to it. We eat not without adoring (Master Saunder) although we adore not that which we eat bodily, but that which we eat spiritually, giving this divine honour unto him, that we put our whole trust & confidence in his redemption, whereof this external and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance.   

CAP. XXIII.  
The real presence of Christ's body is proved by the confession of the Apology. 
Saunder.   
The Apology confesseth that Christ is given us in the 
Fulke.  mysteries, that we may certainly know, we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and that Christ continueth in us and we in him. If Christ be given us (sayeth Saunder) in these mysteries, he is present in them: for a gift is not made of a thing absent. Yes, Master Saunder, if the Prince at Westminster, give a manor lying in Yorkshire by letters patents, the Patentee which receiveth his Patent at Westminster, hath the manor truly given unto him, which is in Yorkshire. Therefore, a gift by sufficient assurance, may be of a thing absent in nature thereof: and so is Christ's body given us in the mysteries, which are the seal of God's promise, truly giving Christ's body unto us, which according to the natural and corporal manner of presence, is in heaven, and not on the earth. Col. 3. But Saunder would understand how we know, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, except it be by the real & corporal presence of Christ in the mysteries? Yes forsooth, we know it by the word of God, which so testifieth, Eph. 5. and by the spirit of Christ which dwelleth in us, Rom. 8. and last of all, we have assurance thereof by the holy sacrament, as by a seal, confirmation, and pledge of the performance of God's promises unto us.  
But a conjunction betwixt the flesh of Christ, & the flesh of men, cannot be made (saith he) by faith, spirit, and understanding. As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of marriage, except in deed they come bodily together. Yes sir, we hold, that Christ is actually joined to the nature of man, by his incarnation, but this conjunction profiteth not all men, but only them to whom he is joined, by spirit, faith, & understanding: and so the incarnation of Christ, made all the fathers of the old testament, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. For otherwise, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. What availeth it the reprobate, that God is become man, joined in the same substance of flesh, blood and bones, and human soul? Nothing: because they lack the spirit of Christ and faith.  
Last of all, where he saith, that man & wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation, it is a beastly opinion. For he that said, they shall be two in one flesh, spoke of the holy conjunction of two persons in marriage, according to God's institution, before carnal copulation, by which, the act of generation is sanctified, and the bed made to be undefiled, not restraining the conjunction to the coupling of their bodies. For the Scripture called joseph and Marie, husband and wife, although there were no coming together of their bodies. And how can the Papists affirm Matrimony to be a sacrament, when the conjunction in one flesh, which is the effect thereof, cannot be wrought by the word of God, but is left in the choice of the man and the woman? Last of all, where Saunder saith, there is no other means taught in the Gospel, how Christ may be present in flesh, or his flesh joined to our flesh, but by means of transubstantiation, it will fall out, that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospel, neither was thought upon six hundred years in the Church, but the contrary manifestly proved, that Christ is not present in flesh at all, nor his flesh should be joined to our flesh by any means. Such truth is in his assertions.   

CAP. XXIIII.  
The contrariety of the Apology is showed, and that the lifting up of our hearts to heaven, is no good cause why we should lift 
Saunder.  the body of Christ from the altar.  
First he chargeth us with great forgetfulness. afterward 
Fulke.  to make a show of contrariety, he falsifieth most impudently the words of the Apology, which he cited himself in the Chapter last before. Christ giveth himself present in these mysteries, etc. therefore he is not here, but in heaven, feeding us from thence. This word, Present, he now addeth, which because he miss before, he would seem to prove it by reason. Shall I say, who ever had to do with such a forgetful man, or rather, with so shameless an heretic? Although the Apology never denieth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries, but always, that manner of presence, which the papists affirm, and is now in controversy between us.  
That the exhortation to lift up men's hearts, is no good argument to prove that Christ is only in heaven, he useth much foolish babbling, as though that saying only were brought for an argument, or that saying of itself for a sufficient argument, or that saying for any argument. But where the Scripture saith, that Christ after his ascension, concerning his humanity, hath left the world, joan. 16. (which the Apostles understood to be spoken plainly, and without all parable) and that he sitteth in heaven, and not on earth, Col. 3. the Apology saith, this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift up their hearts: and not as Saunder perverteth it, because the people are exhorted to lift up their hearts, therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries.  
But lifting up of hearts with the old fathers, was to acknowledge the mysteries upon the table, to believe the sacrifice of the Mass, and not to deny the real presence of Christ, saith Saunder. Do you not look for some sound argument, to prove this gear, especially of him which immediately before, charged the author of the Apology, to use an argument more like a tinker, than a divine? you shall hear his argument of authority of Chrysostom, Hom. de Eucharistia. Didst thou not promise the Priest, when he cried, Lift up your minds and hearts: and saiedst thou not: we lift them up unto our Lord? Will you see a wonderful matter? The table is furnished with the mysteries. The lamb of God is offered for thee, the Priest is hofull for thee, a spiritual fire floweth from the table. Lo here be the mysteries upon the table, here is the lamb of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Mass. But I pray you sir, what is the spiritual fire that floweth from the table? O that is a figurative speech, you will say, alluding to the burned offering of the old law. Nay, if ye have figures of rhetoric, than you have no truth, you have but foolish dreams, you have nothing made by your words. Is not this your own Logic, Master Saunder?   

CAP. XXV.  
What be gross imaginations concerning the supper of Christ. 
Saunder.   
The words of the Apology are these: Cyrillus saith: that in the receiving of the mysteries, all gross imaginations 
Fulke.  must be put away. Saunder chargeth the fine penner of the apology, with foul play, in belying Cyrillus, as though he had spoken against the real presence which they believe, and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those gross imaginations because the place is marvelous evident against him. Would you not think that Saunder had great advantage, that so dare be bold to rail? you shall hear the words of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat. ad Enoptium, against Nestorius: but whereas shameless Saunder cutteth of the one half of the sentence, which is marvelous evident against him, I will set down the whole sentence, even to the period, and the sentences following also, which giveth some light to the former. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronun●●as, & irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem, & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare, quae sola, pura & in exquisita fide accipiuntur. Quoniam enim minimè editur divinitatis natura, propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini? Scire autem operaepretium est, quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat. Quoniam autem est corpus vitae, vivificum est. Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam, & mo●ti● imperium evacuat, vivificat autem nos aequali modo & sanctus spiritus Christi. Spiritus est enim qui vivificat secundum e●●sdem salvatoris vocem. Dost thou pronounce this our Sacrament, to be the eating of a man? And dost thou unreverently enforce the mind of the faithful to gross cogitations?  
Hear Saunder choppeth of: but cyril proceedeth: And dost thou attempt to handle by humane cogitations those things which are received, by only pure and uncurious or simple faith? For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten, for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body? But it is profitable for us to know, that as we said before, the body of that word which quickeneth all things, is a proper body. And seeing it is the body of life, it is of power to quicken. For by this it giveth life unto our mortal bodies, and doth make void the power of death, and in equal manner the holy spirit of Christ doth quicken us. For it is the spirit that quickeneth, according to the saying of the same our Saviour.  
Thus far Cyrillus, whose words do plainly show that he calleth all those gross and human cogitations, by which it is said, that Christ, is eaten in the Sacrament, as a natural man, and any otherwise received then only by faith. Such are the imaginations of the Papists, that Christ is eaten carnally, even without efficacy of his spirit, that he is included under the forms of bread and wine, that he is received with the mouth, pressed with the teeth, swallowed with the throat, essentially & naturally turned into the substance of our bodies, or our bodies turned into him, and an hundredth other such gross cogitations, as the Papists have of digestion, corruption of the accidents, eating of the Sacrament by brute beasts, these be gross imaginations, of which Cyrillus speaketh, that tend ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the eating of a man, or to any kind of eating the flesh of Christ, other then by faith only. And therefore Saunder might have spared his pains in noting ten other gross imaginations.  
The first, that we should not imagine Christ to lie, where he saith, it is his body, as though we did imagine any such blasphemy.  
The second, that we should not imagine his saying to be dark or obscure, when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith, Eo manifestè dicente, sith himself saith manifestly. Although we do not imagine his words to be obscure, yet this is a gross argument, to prove that his words be not figurative, because cyril writeth he saith manifestly, that is, it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body, for he saith as manifestly, this cup is the new Testament.  
The third gross imagination, that we should not think any other body to be eaten, but the true body of Christ, who in one person is God and man, as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten, but not the proper body of God the word. We imagine no such matter, but we deny that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith only, as Cyrillus teacheth us.  
The fourth gross imagination, that we should eat the body of Christ dead, and passable, whereas it is quick and of power to quicken us, as cyril saith, Quoniam, &c: Because the flesh of our saviour joined to the word of God, which is life naturally, is made able to give life, when we eat it, than we have life in us, being joined to that flesh which is made life.  
According to this saying of Cyrillus, we believe, that we cannot eat that flesh, except we have life thereby, but the Papists grossly imagine, it may be eaten without effect of life. The fift gross imagination, that we should eat Christ's flesh raw, as the Capernaits: & as grossly do they imagine, which teach, that it is prepared with such cookery, that all spices, confection, sauces, etc. are contained in it, as Saunder doth. The sixth gross imagination, that it should be eaten by pieces, one a shoulder, and another a leg, against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh. And as gross it is to imagine and mere monstrous, that the natural body should be eaten after a corporal manner, whole of every men, and in so many places at once. The seventh gross imagination is, of the Lutherans, which think the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers bread, whereas Christ would not have in his supper an earthly substance of material bread. More gross is the imagination of the Papists, which hold, that the glorious body of Christ must be eaten with vain accidents of bread and wine, which Saunder calleth the veils and curtains, to co●er the said flesh, because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mystical kind of presence. Beware Saunder, what you say, lest you prove a sacramentary. Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, another manner of presence, than that presence which the Apostles beheld with their eyes sitting before them? Yea, it was a glorious and mystical presence. If you could hold you there, we should soon be agreed. The eight, is to confess the real presence, and to deny adoration, let them answer, that defend such presence. The ninth, how gross is it to deny it to be a propitiatory sacrifice? si●h it is his body, who is the propitiation for the world. Nay, how gross is this consequence? seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice, and by that one oblation, found eternal redemption. Heb. 9 & 10.  
The ●enth gross imagination is of him, who teacheth, that the words that are spoken of a gift presently made and delivered, be words of promise, and of preaching Nay rather it is a gross imagination of him, which teacheth a gift to be made, delivered, and received, when he which receiveth it, is never the better for it.  
Finally, whatsoever the Papists teach of the Sacrament, it is gross falsehood, and mere human invention contrary to the holy Scriptures, the sense of which, and not the sound of words grossly understood, is the word of God.   

CAP. XXVI.  
What the first Council of Nice hath taught, concerning Christ's 
Sande●  supper.  
The Apology toucheth briefly, that the Council 
Fulke  of Nice, as it is cited in Greek, of some, doth expressly forbid us, that we should not basely occupy ou● minds about the bread and wine set before us, Saunder taketh pains to set down the words at large, and gathereth great matters out of them. Iterum etiam hîc in divina mensa, etc. Again, here also in the holy table, let us not basely attend the bread and cup set before us, but lifting up our mind, let us understand by faith: That Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, to be set on that holy table, to be unbloodily sacrificed of the priests, and that we truly taking his own precious body and blood, do believe these to be the mystical tokens of our redemption. For this cause we ta●e not much but little, that we may know we take not to fill us, but for holiness. Out of these words, ten arguments he hath, to prove, or to help to prove, the real presence of Christ's body under the forms of bread and wine.  
The first is, that bread and wine are set on the table, not to be basely considered, ergo they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. This is a poor, and a forlorn help, and a miserable argument. For the contrary doth follow, the bread must not be basely considered, ergo it is bread, although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptism.  
The second argument, is, that seeing the words of consecration be passed (in respect of which, the Council sayeth, the bread and wine must not be basely considered) the words did not only make them a Sacrament, as in baptism, etc. but also did work some real thing under the forms of bread and wine, which remaineth still, as long as the said forms and signs remain. Nay rather, the Council signifieth, that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof, is not perfit, before the use and receipt of it: whereof it speaketh soon after, and therefore is not to be basely considered, as common bread and wine, but sanctified to a special use of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption: as for the forms, and signs, and colours of bread and wine, the Council speaketh not one word of them, but of bread and the cup, which be substances, and not accidental forms.  
The third, We must understand (saith he) not by seeing, but by lifting up our minds to heaven by faith. In deed, that is the only way to understand the mystical presence of Christ's body & blood in the Sacrament.  
The fourth, We must believe, that to be the Lamb of God, which is on the holy table, whereon standeth that which seemeth bread and wine. But the Council speaketh not of that which seemeth, but of that which is bread and wine, and that by lifting up of our minds into heaven, by faith, We believe it to be the body and blood of Christ.  
The fifth, The Lamb is there so, that he is put, laid, and situate there, as a thing may be situate, which is under the forms of another thing. But if a man should ask you, how that may be? I marvel by what thing you would exemplify it, and yet your words import a fimilitude. Therefore seeing it is without example, your position is after an imagined manner. Whereas the Council never thought of any such quiditie, but that lifting up our minds into heaven by faith, we understand that Christ is dispensed unto us, by his holy mysteries, as we are incorporated to him by baptism, not that one thing is situated as another thing, which is no where, neither any such thing can be showed, and therefore is nothing, but an idle toy of an evil occupied brain.  
The sixth, The Lamb is so truly made present, that he is outwardly offered of the Priests, unbloodily. Where have you the word, outwardly, or what argument have you of an outward oblation, except you think Priests cannot offer, but outwardly? Nay, rather in that the Council saith, the Lamb is offered unbloodily, it signifieth, that it is not offered for a propitiatory sacrifice, to take away sins, for without shedding of blood, there is no sacrifice for sins, Hebr. 9 but that a remembrance of that only insacrificable sacrifice of Christ, is celebrated in that holy action.  
The seventh, After the sacrifice made, the people do partake with the altar, which could not be, except a permanent substance were made by consecration. The Council speaketh not of partaking with the altar, but of receiving the body and blood of Christ, in the mystical tokens of our redemption, which overthroweth private Mass, Communion in one kind, and transubstantiation, and showeth the Sacrament not to be perfit, before it be received.  
The eight, Truly taking of the precious body and blood of Christ, is to take it really and bodily. The Council speaketh of no bodily taking, but of taking by faith, when we believe the bread and wine to be the mystical tokens of our redemption, we truly take the precious body and blood of Christ.  
The ninth, taking of that which standeth before us on the table, is by the instrument of our bodies: therefore it is delivered by the corporal ministery of the priests, so that all is truly and externally done by the judgement of the Council. A shameless collection of a false argument. For that which standeth on the table, the Council calleth bread, and the cup, which is taken and delivered externally, and by corporal instruments, the rest must be understood by faith, which is not of external things, but of things invisible.  
The tenth, we truly taking them, believe them to be the tokens of our redemption, or as some read, resurrection: for bread & wine be not tokens of our redemption. Did bread and wine redeem us? or did they rise from death, quoth Saunder? No verily: But the Council saith for all that: that these things which are set on the table, namely, bread and the cup, are believed of us to be the mystical tokens of our redemption, which the words following do declare. For this cause we take not much, but little, that we might know we take not to fill us, but for holiness. What can that be, whereof, not much but a little is taken, but the bread and wine? for the body & blood of Christ, is not taken in quantity more or less. Secondly, what need we by taking little, be admonished, that it is not to fill us, if we did think there were no bread nor wine there, which could fill us? Finally, why take we a little for holiness, if we take that which is nothing but all holiness itself, and of his own nature, whether we take little or much. You see therefore, the Council meant not to make Christ's body a mystical token of itself, which is a monstrous saying, and as monstrous an opinion, but the bread and wine in the sacrament, to be mystical and divine tokens of our redemption, wrought in the body and bloodshedding of our saviour Christ. Wherefore the Apology without fraud or purpose of deceiving, hath left out no words of the Council, that make against it, but whatsoever it hath omitted, it hath left of that advantage, it might justly have taken, if it had thoroughly and at large discussed them.   

CAP. XXVII.  
That the Catholics have the table of Eagles, and the Sacramentaries 
Sand.  have the table of jays.  
The author of the Apology is charged with impudency, 
Fulke.  for alleging the place of Chrysostom, in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles, unto the body of Christ, as though the body of Christ were not upon the altar, but we only should by faith ascend into heaven, whereas Chrysostom speaketh of going into heaven by good life also, and not by faith only. Afterward he rehearseth his words, but without the head or former part of them, which showeth that Chrysostom teacheth us, how we should come unto Christ, and where we should find him. Likewise he translateth corruptly, to draw them to his imagined flying by good life. Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum & admirabile, quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia & charitate maxima ad se accedamus, & aquilae in hat vita facti, ad ipsum coelum evolemus, vel potius supra coelum. Vbi enim cadaver (inquit) illie & aquilae. All this hath Saunder left out. Cadaver domiri corpus propter mortem, nisi enim ille cecidisset, nos non resurrexissemus. Aquilas autem appellat, ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere, qui ad hoc corpus accedit, & nihil cum terra debere ei esse common, neque ad inferiora trahi & repere, sed ad superiora semper volare, & in solem just 〈…〉 tae iniu●ri, mentisque oculum acutissimum habere. Aquilarum enim, non graculorum haec mensa est. For unto this doth the dreadful and wonderful sacrifice bring us, which commandeth us that with concord and greatest charity we come to it, and being made Eagles in this life, we fly up unto heaven itself, or rather above heaven. For where the carcase is (saith he) there also be the Eagles. The lords body is the carcase, through his death, for except he had fallen, we had not risen again. And he nameth eagles, to show, that he must get up on high, which cometh to this body, and that he ought to have nothing to do with the earth, nor to be drawn down and creep to the low places, but always to fly up unto the high places, and to behold the son of righteousness, and to have the eye of the mind most clear. For this is the table of Eagles, not of jays. judge now whether Chrysostom mean to tell us, that the body of Christ is upon the altar, or in heaven. For we must be made Eagles, not to hover upon the table, but to fly up into heaven, or rather above heaven. Wherefore must we fly into heaven or above heaven? because Christ is there. Wherefore must he that cometh to this body contend unto the highest place, and to have nothing to do with the earth or lower places, if the body of Christ lieth below upon the table? But we must have a most clear eye of the mind, (sayeth Saunder) to see the body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, as an Eagle flying on high, will fee a fish under the water, and catch it, as Augustine writeth. But Chrysostom teacheth us, not to fly upon high, to look down from on high, and see the body of Christ under the water or clouds of accidents, but always to fly up on high, and to behold the son of righteousness, which is in heaven, and not below on earth; for if the body were come down so low as the table, what need we fly from it, to behold it from so great a distance?  
And whereas he sayeth, that we are jays, because we see weakly, and content ourselves with a base banquet of bread and wine: I would he knew, we have a most clear eye of the mind, which through that base banquet of bread and wine, can behold and see the very body and blood of Christ, sitting above all heavens, and fly so high with the wings of faith, that we not only see it, but also that we are thereby fed and nourished into eternal life.  
That we think good works to bring small aid to life everlasting, it is, because we fly like Eagles to an higher cause, the only mercy of GOD in jesus Christ, and Papists be like jays flying below, which think the unperfect works of earthly and sinful men, can help to bring them to perfect happiness in heaven. But (saith Saunder) he speaketh of the table, which standeth in the Church before us, he speaketh not now of heaven, which is above the sun. This saith Saunder, without all proof and against all reason. For Chrysostom saith, it is the table of Eagles, therefore it is an higher table than the table in the Church, where unto we must fly upward always, even into heaven, where that body, which once was dead, is now sitting in glory, yea above all visible heavens, and therefore above the sun. So that the table in Chrysostom, signifieth metonymically, the spiritual meat and drink, which the faithful receive by faith only, whereof the table on earth, with that which is on it, is only a Sacrament, pledge & assurance. But Chrysostom in the same homily saith: If no man will rashly handle, an other man's garment, how dare we to our great shame and reproach, receive this pure and immaculate body, which is the Lord of all, which is partaker of the divine nature, etc. Hear (saith Saunder) Chrysostom showeth us, to receive the body of Christ, from the holy table or Altar, as truly concerning the substance thereof, as we may truly touch another man's garment. I answer, he speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table, and seeing he hath before showed, how and from whence, Christ's body is in deed received, if afterward, he call the external Sacraments by the names of that which they signify, and perform to the worthy receiver. What proof is that, for the carnal presence? Neither doth he show at all, how truly Christ's body is taken but what injury it is unto his body, to have his sacraments despised or unworthily received.   

CAP. XXVIII.  
The bread which is the meat of the mind●, and not of the 
Saunder.  belly, can be no wheaten bread, but only the bread of life which is the body of Christ.  
This saying of Cyprian (saith Saunder) proveth that 
Fulke.  the substance of bread remaineth not: for material bread, cannot be meant of the mind, but of the belly. Yes forsooth, as well as material water c●n serve for the washing of the mind. And yet Saint Peter saith, it is not the washing of the body, but the answer of a good conscience which is baptism that saveth us. Wherefore it may be material bread though not prepared to feed the body, but consecrated as a sacrament to feed the mind. The plain meaning of Cyprian is, that the body of Christ, entereth not into the body of man, but into the mind: being no bodily food, but spiritual food, as the Apostle calleth it. 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith, The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be made fat in God; I have showed before, how it must of necessity be understood, of the external sacrament, which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament, seeing he speaketh there altogether of the external signs received in the body, and virtue thereof applied to the soul. But Cyprian saith further, in the same treatise de coen▪ dom. Panis iste etc. This bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, is made flesh, by the almighty power of the word. This place is often alleged by the Papists, for transubstantiation, but Cyprian did mean no such matter, but only that common bread by the almighty power of the word of God, is changed from the nature of common bread, which is a bodily food, to be an heavenly and spiritual food, as I have declared more at large in answer to doctor Heskins. lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall have better occasion to speak of the same place repeated afterward.   

CAP. XXIX.  
Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone, whereof 
Saunder.  only Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alleged by the Apology.  
The Apology to show the natural body of Christ, 
Fulke.  not to be sought on the earth, but by faith in heaven, citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in joan. How shall I hold him, that is absent? How shall I reach forth mine hand in●o heaven, that I might hold him there sitting? Reach out saith he faith, and thou hast caught him. Here Saunder scoffeth out of measure, saying that Augustine in that place spoke not one whit of the Sacrament, but of believing in Christ, that he speaketh not to the faithful, but to the unbelieving jews; and therefore it is one thing to receive Christ by faith alone, another thing to receive him by faith and sacrament together. In deed it is true, that Christ may be received by faith alone, without the sacrament, and it is as true, that Christ is received by faith alone, with the sacrament, seeing by this place of Augustine, it is showed, that Christ is absent from the earth, and to be sought in heaven only by faith. No (saith Saunder) although he be absent to infidels, that are not baptized, yet he, is not absent to the faithful, that are admitted to the Lords table. As though Augustine in the same treatise, showeth not at large, that the body of Christ is not with the Church on earth, upon these words, The poor you shall have always with you, but me you shall not have: the place I have cited at large before, and in the same treatise, showeth how Christ is present in the holy sacraments, namely in one as he is in the other. Quid est enim non semper, & quid est semper? Si bonus es, si ad corpus Christipertines, quod significat Petrus▪ habes Christum, & in praesenti, & in futuro, In praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum Christi, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. Habes Christum in praesenti, sed habebis semper: quia cùm hinc exieris, ad illum venies, qui dixit latroni: H●die me●um eris in Paradiso. Si autem malè versaris, videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam, signas te signo Christi, baptizaris baptismo Christi, misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi, in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè vivendo non semper habebis. What is meant by not always, and what is always? If thou be a good man, if thou pertain unto the body of Christ, which Peter doth signify, thou hast Christ, both in this present time, and in the world to come. In this present world by faith, in this present world by the sign of Christ, in this present world by the sacrament of baptism, in this present world by the meat and drink of the Altar, Thou hast Christ in this present world, and thou shalt always have him. For when thou shalt departed from hence, thou shalt come unto him, which said unto the thief: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. But if thou leadest an evil life, thou seemest to have Christ in this present world, because thou comest into the Church, signest thee with the sign of Christ, art baptized with the baptism of Christ, joinest they self with the members of Christ, comest unto the Altar of Christ, thou hast Christ in this present world, but by evil living thou shalt not always have him. By these words it is evident how Christ is present in the meat and drink of the Altar, namely as he is present in Baptism, which is not corporally but spiritually. secondly, that the ungodly so receive Christ in the sacraments, that they only seem to have him, when in deed, they have nothing but the sign of him. thirdly, that all the faithful in Augustine's time, received as well drink as meat at the Altar. Last of all, while Saunder jesteth at the penne● of the Apology, he showeth himself most ridiculous of all. For although Augustine speaketh of the jews by Apostrophe, which he wisheth might be● converted, yet he speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithful for their instruction, at which never a jew was present. And where as Saunder argueth, that because no infidel was admitted to be present in time of mass, therefore Augustine might not lawfully talk to a jew of the mystical presence of Christ in the Sacrament: he showeth double folly, for why might he not expound even to the jews, that which our Saviour Christ himself spoke to the unbelieving jews of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood▪ and secondly, when he preached publicly of that mystical presence, or writ of it in books which he set abroad, to be red of all men, how could he prohibit infidels to hear the one or read the other? And yet I know the ancient Fathers, had such regard to speak of the mysteries of our religion, before infidels, that they should not take an occasion to scorn them or deride them. Nevertheless they were not so dangerous, as Saunder imagineth: justinus Martyr in his Apology to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome, and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the jew, feareth not plainly to express what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries, wherefore Augustine although in these words he spoke not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, yet in other words of the same homily, as you have seen, he speaketh of the presence of Christ, even in his sacraments.    

The third Book.  
In the Preface of the third Book he promiseth to prove, First that Christ in the sixth of S. john, spoke of the gift he made afterward in his parting banquet. Secondly, that the real presence of his flesh and blood, is evidently proved by such words of promise, as he there uttered. afterward he excuseth himself, that he is driven to handle deep & obscure matters, being a poor scholar of Oxford, and yet inferior to 200, that were in the late Tridentine council. So that if any Parliament man brought up in hawking and hunting, think he writeth too profound lie for his understanding, he must think, that he is less able to be a judge of this whole controversy, and of all questions in religion. As though it were necessary, for every member of the Parliament, that shall entreat of cases of religion, to be trained up in school points of Popish divinity, which the farther they be, from the understanding of that common people, the further they are from faith & Christian religion, which ought to be commonly know● even to the simplest women and children. And albeit that every parliament man is not able of himself to judge of all controversies of religion, yet they altogether, by the instruction of so many godly learned men, as are among them, may decree what laws are necessary to be made, for the advancement of God's glory in religion, as well as for the furtherance of the common wealth in quiet & tranquillity. To conclude, his foolish preface hath never done craking of hard and difficult matters, as though he were a man of such ripe judgement in them, that whatsoever he did write, were the Oracles of Apollo, where as in deed, every mean wise man shall easily perceive, that when he would seem to wind himself out of a difficult and intricate matter, he showeth more boldness in avouching, than soundness in his approving.  

CAP. I.  
The argument of the sixth chapter of saint john, is declared. 
Saunder.   
First he affirmeth that Christ may be received three 
Fulk.  ways, by faith and spirit only without the Sacrament, in the Sacrament of the Altar only without faith and grace, or in both together. Of the last kind of receiving, he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning upon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes, he exhorteth the jews to work the meat that perisheth not, which the son of man will give them. This gift (saith he) is plainly meant of his last supper, and so saith Theophilact, a late writer. But because they could not come to the working of this gift, without faith upon him, therefore he teacheth, for a preparation, that he is the bread of life, etc.▪ After which preparation made, he returneth (saith he) to expound his own gift, showing most expressly, that, which he will give in his last supper. And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. But the gift of spiritual eating was not to come, when Christ spoke unto his disciples, but Christ saith, his peculiar gift was to come. This only reason he useth in this Chapter. Wherein you must note, first that here of a falsifying mind, he citeth the words of Christ otherwise then Saint john did write them. For his words are these: And the bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. In which words, the gift is manifestly referred unto his passion, and not unto his supper. Wherefore although spiritual eating of his flesh, was from the beginning of the world, yet that singular act, by which the flesh of Christ had virtue to feed unto eternal life, and was given for meat, was not then performed, but was soon after accomplished in his death and passion. For all benefits of Christ, have like streams flowed always, from the blood of his cross, and our redemption and reconciliation thereby. If Saunder will excuse himself of falsifying the scripture, because the vulgar translation in the later end of the sentence, leaveth out these words, which I will give, which it is certain, by the Greek text of saint john, that our saviour Christ did speak, he cannot so escape: for the Latin text without his prejudicate opinion, brought unto it, although it want the words, yet may well retain the sense. But Saunder wilfully leaving out these words, which he knoweth both to have been used by Christ, and which give a clear and clean contrary sense, to that which he affirmeth, and that in so weighty a matter, as is the passion of Christ, wittingly incurreth the horrible curse of GOD, pronounced against all them that add or take any thing from his holy word.   

CAP. II.  
It is proved by circumstances, and by the conference of holy 
Saunder.  Scriptures, that Christ speaketh in saint john of his last supper.  
The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet 
Fulk.  neither any one, nor altogether, prove, that Christ speaketh of his supper, otherwise then as it is a seal of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter.  
The first circumstance is, the time, which he supposeth to be Easter twelvemonth, before his supper instituted, to argue, that he speaketh of his supper, is a vain argument, both because the time is uncertain, and also because the time of Easter, if it were certain, hath better relation to his passion, then to his supper.  
The 2. circumstance is, the miracle made in bread. A ridiculous matter, as though it were not made also in flesh. But in deed the miracle made in meat, gave occasion to that doctrine uttered in that Chapter, as S. john showeth. The 3. circumstance, the Prophetical promise, what he would do the Easter twelvemonth after. I answer, that promise was fulfilled in his passion.  
The 4. the conference of things done and said about the sea of Tiberias, & at Capernaum, with that was done and said in the last supper. This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences. The 5. the present eating of the father's gift. The 6. the eating of Christ's gift to come. To these two circumstances, I answer, that Christ exhorteth the jews to the present eating of his flesh, upon pain of damnation: Except ye eat the flesh, etc. He which eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. Therefore the flesh & blood of Christ, might be eaten and drunken before his supper. Wherefore none of these circumstances do prove a promise of a sacramental eating, which may be without profit, nor an eating of the natural substance of flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, which at that time was not instituted. But now we must come to the conferences. Four of which conferences, are bread. 2. blessing. 3. thanksgiving. 4. eating in both. I answer, so there was in all the dinners, and suppers that ever he did make. Beside that, here is multiplying, and fish, which is not in the last supper. Therefore a vain conference. The fift is that as here, he beginneth his talk of common bread, and endeth with eating and drinking his flesh and blood, so in his supper, he took common bread in his hands, and ended his banquet in eating and drinking of his body and blood. But when Saunder can make a consequence, of this conference, I will yield unto it, that he speaketh of Sacramental eating.  
The 6 and 7. the son of man is the giver, & meat is given in both: ergo he speaketh in both of the Sacraments. I deny the argument, for the meat which the son of man giveth, may be eaten without the Sacrament, and therefore he saith, he that now eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, when as yet that sacrament was not instituted. The 8. conference. He saith, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, and not the bread which I will take. So in his supper, he took one kind of bread, and gave another. This is a noble conference, to tell us what Christ said not. According to which, I might confer this: He saith, the bread which I will give, he saith not, the drink which I will give, is my blood, therefore in the supper he giveth not his blood.  
The 9 conference, the flesh is given in the one, and nothing but the body in the other, for the substance of common bread was changed. This reason in deed is of great weight, if transubstantiation were granted.  
The 10. No common bread is given in either of both places, if by common bread he meant profane bread, and not dedicated to holy use. I confess the conference, but seeing by common bread, he meaneth natural bread, I deny it. For though no natural or material bread was promised to be given in the sixth of Saint john, yet was natural bread given in the Sacrament.  
The 11. The flesh that died for us, is given in both. That is true, but after diverse manners: in the one it is given in a Sacrament, in the other more generally, but in both to be spiritually received, and not carnally. The 12. The gift is eaten in deed in both: I confess, but spiritually and by faith, yet with this difference, that in the one, it is eaten often without the sacrament, the other is a seal or a sacrament of that, which is eaten even without it.  
The 13. The blood of Christ is drunk in both. It is so drunk, as the flesh is eaten. The 14. As in the sixth of john, there is no wine spoken of: so Christ in his supper neither spoke of wine, but of drinking, nor gave any wine at all to be drunk, because it was by his words changed into his blood. I answer, If bread were spoken of, in that which was taken into his hands, wine by Metonymia was spoken of, by taking the cup. Secondly, if the fruit of the vine be the matter of wine, wine was spoken of. At Caparnaum, there was no wine spoken of, nor any occupied. Let Saunder see how he can make the conference with the supper, in which wine was occupied, although he say, it was not drunk, which is a weighty argument, when that which is in question, is brought for the proof. Last of all, if Christ at his supper, gave no wine at all to be drunk (as Saunder saith) how agreeth the Popish communion with Christ's supper? seeing the Papists do give wine to be drunk, unto the lay people.  
The 15. The twelve Apostles most faithful, tarried with him at Caparnaum, so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying, to his holy table. In the faithful tarrying of the twelve Apostles, he forgetteth judas, and that the twelve only were present at the institution of the supper, it is uncertain. For it is certain there was more than twelve present at the eating of the passover: and it is proved before, that judas went out before the Sacrament ordained.  
The 16. Peter with the twelve protested in both places, not to forsake Christ. So they did at other times and places, where no mention was of eating Christ. The last, judas was reproved in both places. I answer, judas was reproved in other places, where no promise or mention of the supper is made. Finally I answer, that not any one, nor altogether of these conferences, can make any consequence, to prove that our Saviour Christ in that sixth of john's Gospel, speaketh of the Sacrament, otherwise then as it is a seal, a pledge, an undoubted token of assurance, of that spiritual eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, which in that Chapter is commended unto us.   

CAP. III.  
It is proved out of the holy Fathers and general counsels, that 
Saunder.  Christ in S. john spoke of his last supper.  
I have showed even now, in what sort Christ may 
Fulk.  be said to have spoken of his last supper, in that chapter; and of that sense and meaning, are the most ancient and sound fathers, whom Saunder citeth to be understood. And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christ's flesh and blood, which there is spoken of, to be peculiar unto the supper, and singularly to be understood of eating in the sacrament, and not otherwise: which is the only thing which we deny, and not that the doctrine of that Chapter, doth not at all pertain to the supper, but that it is further to be extended, then to the supper, by which, the carnal manner of eating of Christ's flesh, is manifestly overthrown. But let us briefly, run over his authorities. First Ignatius, Clemens, Alexandrinus, and Origen he omitteth, because they speak nothing almost sounding to his purpose. But Cyprian in orat, dominica, seemeth unto him clearly, to prove, that it is meant of the supper, because he writeth, that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament, is in danger of everlasting life: alleging this text of saint john: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. For he should wholly fail of his proof (saith he) if that place did not prove the necessity of communicating sacramentally. I deny the argument: for he speaketh of them which were cut off from the body of Christ by excommunication, whose admission unto the communion, was an assurance of their incorporation again. This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2, cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in sin. nou. test lib. 4. which saith, Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the mysteries. A sorry argument, as though the spiritual eating of Christ's flesh were not a mystery. It had been very unseasonable, to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted, although as I have said, his doctrine may be extended also to the sacrament. The 3. is Hilary lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural verity of Christ, which is in us by the sacrament, allegeth these words: My flesh is meat in deed. I answer, Hilary affirmeth that the natural verity of Christ's flesh is in us, by his incarnation if we be faithful, which is testified by the mystery and sacrament of bread and wine. Therefore he saith, n●●què verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus: we do truly, under a mystery, take the flesh of his body: Again, naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobi● communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it: he hath joined the nature of his flesh unto the nature of eternity, under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with us. The 4. is Basil, Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper, with the words of this Chapter, which proveth not the matter in hand, otherwise than I have showed, but of Basil we must see more afterward touching this controversy. The 5. is Gregory Nyssene his brother, in vita Mosis, who saith: that the bread which came down from heaven, which is the true meat, is no unbodily thing, for how should a thing that lacketh a body, be made mea●● unto the body? Doubtless (saith Saunder) Christ is made meat unto our bodies, no where but only in the Sacrament. Sanders Doubtless, is all the argument, judge of it as ye list. The 6. is Cyrillus of jerusalem in Catech. Mistagog. 4. who entreating of the Sacrament, citeth these words, except ye eat: ergo these words are to be understood only of eating in the sacrament. Hear he desireth licence, being compassed with such a multitude of witnesses briefly to run over the rest, as he hath not been very long in any of the other, and the like licence I require, that one answer may serve them all, which are worth the answering; that although the Fathers did refer the doctrine of the sixth of S. john, unto the supper: yet they refer it not only unto the supper, which is the matter we stick upon. Neither Ambrose, nor Eusebius Emissenus, & much less Chrysostom & Augustine, which do plainly extend it further than to the supper. And last of all Hierom in the place by Saunder cited, in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith, the flesh and blood of Christ is understanded two ways, either that spiritual & divine, whereof he said: My flesh is meat in deed, etc. or else, that flesh which was crucified for us, & that blood which was s●ed with the spear of the soldier. Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all, or else he declareth manifestly, that the flesh which was crucified, is not given us in this Sacrament. And what his judgement is of that place, he showeth evidently in Ps. 147. Quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum, licet & in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi & sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est, divina doctrina est. When he saith, he which shall not eat my flesh, nor drink my blood, etc. although it may be understood in the mystery, yet more truly the body of Christ & his blood is the words of the scriptures, it is the doctrine of God. The next is Cyrillus, whom Saunder most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar, because sometime he nameth the mysteries, and the mystical blessing, and the communicating of the holy cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying, which Saunder maketh the promise of his supper. The bread, which I will give, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. Morior inquit pro omnibus, ut per meipsum omnes vinificem, & caro mea omni●● redemptio fiat, mori●tur enim mors morte mea, & si●ul me cum natura hominum resurget I die (saith he) for all men, that I might quicken all men by myself, & my flesh may be made the redemption of all men: for death by my death, shall die, & the nature of man shall rise again together with me. Likewise he expoundeth these words: He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & ●inhim. Quonianres ardua est & fide magis quam alio modo recipitur: ideo multis atque varijs modis, mirabilem eius utilitatem exponit fundamentum & basim fidem esse confirmans. Because the matter that is high, and is received by faith, rather than by any other means, he setteth forth the marvelous profit thereof, by many and divers means, confirming y● faith is the ground & foundation. Concerning the rest, whom he rehearseth, as Sedulius, Leo, Isychiu●, Proiper, Eucherius, Cas●iodorus, Primatius, which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lords supper, I answers as before, it is not sufficient to prove, that the bread is either only or principally to be understood of the lords supper. As for Damaseen, Haymo, Bernard, with other late writers, the last council of Trent, and the second of Nice, what errors they followed we have not to regard, and much less the practice of the Popish Church, reading that text for the Gospel of Corpus Christi day, but the first council of Ephesus, which he iumbleth up among the rest, in Epistola at Nestorium, affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth, but showeth, what they judged of that flesh, whereof they received the sacrament, namely, that it is the flesh of the son of God, able to give life, as more at large I have showed in answer to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16.   

CAP. FOUR  
Answer is made to their objections, who teach out of the holy 
Saunder.  fathers that the sixth Chapter of S. john ought to be expounded only of spiritual eating.  
Where it is alleged, that the fathers expound the words of that Chapter, partly of belief in Christ, partly 
Fulk.  of the unity which riseth by the Sacraments of baptism and penance (saith Saunder) this shall be a sufficient answer. First so many fathers do ●et expound it of any others argument, as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord.  
To this I reply, that all or in a manner all do interpret it of our spiritual conjunction, with the body and blood of Christ, whereof the supper is a Sacrament, and confirmation. Secondly he answereth, that those fathers which have expounded the words otherwise then of the supper, have also expounded them of the supper, whereby their authority is as great, for that which I say, as it is against it. I reply, that none of them expoundeth the words of the supper so, as they be singular unto the supper, and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose; nor expound them otherwise then I have showed in reply to the first answer.  
Thirdly he answereth, that no one of the fathers is brought forth, who denieth these words in S. john to appertain to the supper. A lewd answer, for none of us denieth those words to appertain to the supper, but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper. Fourthly, many of the places brought for the contrary opinion, do manifestly and as it seemeth to Saunder, invincibly prove the words in S. john to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. This shall appear by the examples following. First Cyprian ad Quir●num lib. 3. Cap. 25. & 26. writeth that a man can not come to the kingdom of heaven without baptism, because it is written: Except a man be borne again, etc. and likewise, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. Hear (saith Saunder) he expoundeth not the words of baptism, but meaneth according to the custom of the Church, which was to give the cummunion to infants, not so much for necessity, as for sureties sake, of which custom we have mention in Dionysius, Ambrose, and other. The like answer (he saith) may be made to Innocentius, Augustinus, and Eusebius Emissenus, which bring these words against the Pelagians: Except'ye eat the flesh, etc. to prove that infants can not have life, except they be baptised. To this I reply: it can not be denied, but such an erroneous custom contrary to the word of God, was used in those ancient times, to give the communion to infants, whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity, which Pope Innocentius and Augustine, and all the West Church, (as Augustine saith) did hold, although 
Cont. dua● epist. Pel. lib. 2. Cap. 4.  Saunder would excuse it, to have been practised not for necessity, but for surety: yet hereof it followeth not, that the words of S. john in Cyprian and the rest, are literally understood of the supper, otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, which Saunder confesseth may to be without the Sacrament, even of such eating of the flesh of Christ, as the fathers were partakers of, unto their salvation, before Christ came in the flesh, whereof Augustine speaketh most plentisully. In joan Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question: Huius rei Sacramentum, id est unitatis corporis, etc. A Sacrament of this thing, that is of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, in some places every day, in some places by certain distances of days, is prepared in the Lord's table, and from the Lords table is received: of some to life, of some to destruction. But the thing itself, whereof it is a Sacrament, is received of every man to life, of none to destruction, whosoever shall be partaker of it. And because, Saunder saith, the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily upon the Eucharist alone: The same Augustine saith to the contrary, Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum in Christo manner, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, pro●ul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi, sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudi●itan sibi manducat & bibit. For this it is to eat that meat, and to drink that drink, to abide in Christ and to have him abide in us. And by this, he which abideth not in Christ, & in whom Christ doth not abide, out of all doubt, neither doth he eat spiritually his flesh, not drink his blood, although carnally and visibly, he press with his teeth, the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of so great a thing, unto his own damnation. Hear Augustine opposeth the eating of Christ's flesh spiritually, with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally, whereby he showeth, that Christ's flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually, although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction. And by this you may see, how well red Saunder is in Augustine, which professeth, that in his works he never saw one syllable, why to think that he would the literal sense of the sixth of S. john to belong only to spiritual eating, when Augustine saith expressly, This is to eat that meat, to eat spiritually, to have Christ abiding in us, etc. But that same Augustine de peccat. merit. lib 1. Cap. 20. saith: Dominum audiamus, inqu●m, non quidem hoc de Sacramento lavacri dicentem, sed de Sacramento sanctae mensae suae, quò nemo ritè nisi baptiza●us accedit. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, etc. Let us hear our Lord, I say, not saying in deed, this of the Sacrament of baptism, but of the Sacrament of his holy table, whither no man cometh well, unless he be baptised. Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you, etc. Hear (saith Saunder) it is plain by Augustine's judgement, that Christ in that Chapter speaketh not of baptism, and that he speaketh of his supper. I answer, Augustin writeth against the Pelagians, which denied baptism to be necessary for infants, as for them that had no original nor actual sin, labouring to prove the necessity of baptism by those words of Christ: Except a man be borne of water, and of the holy Ghost, etc. to bring infants under the compass of sin and to establish their salvation only by grace, & not by merit of their works. His cause in deed was good, but his argument was weak, to prove the necessity of baptism by that text, even as to prove the necessity of communion for infants by this text, of the 6. of S. john, which is not needful, nor lawful to be given unto them at all. Yet such was his error, that he thought infants were charged by this text to communicate in pain of damnation. That he judged they ought to be partakers of the body & blood of Christ, it is true by that text, but that he thought this partaking was by the Sacrament in young children, he was deceived, yet Saunder saith, it was not of necessity, but of surety, whereas Augustine's error is manifest to urge it of necessity. An verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit, quòd ad paruulos haec sententia non pertineat? possintque sine participatione corporis h 〈…〉 us & sanguinis in se habere vitam, quia non ait, Qui non manducaverit, sicut de baptismo qui non renatus fuerit, etc. Is there any man that dare say this also, that this sentence pertaineth not unto young children, and that they may without the participation of this body and blood have life in them, because he sayeth not, he that shall not eat, as of baptism, he that shall not be borne again? I will make answer to Augustine not in defence of the Pelagians, but in discovering of his error. Regeneration is undoubtedly proved necessary for infants, by that place of john 3. as eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in this 6. of john: which is enough to overthrow the Pelagians, but neither in the one place, nor in the other, the necessity of the external sacrament is required, but as it may possibly, and aught to be profitably received according to the word of God. Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text unto the sacrament, in arguing from the sign to the thing signified, or contrariwise, must be understood according to his deliberate exposition, in joh. Tr. 26. or else he should be found contrary to himself. And whereas Saunder sayeth, This text so appertaineth to the supper, as it appertaineth not to baptism, and therefore can not be taken of the spiritual uniting with Christ which is in baptism: I deny the argument, for although it doth not so properly pertain to the sacrament of washing, as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing: yet doth it also pertain to baptism, in as much as by baptism we are not only washed by Christ's blood from our sins, but wholly regenerate, & borne a new to be the children of God, which we cannot be, but by participation of flesh & blood with our brother jesus Christ, and therefore we are also in baptism spiritually fed with his body and blood.  
To that which is brought out of Basil, Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical coming, flesh and blood: Saunder answereth, that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper, because he that receiveth worthily, is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applied to the Sacrament, which is all the question, his own words shall declare. Edimus enim ipsius carnem, & bibimus ipsius sanguinem per incarnationem participes fientes & sensibitis vitae verbi & sapientiae. Carnem enim & sanguinem totum suum mysterium adventum nominavit, & doctrinam & activa & naturali, ac theologica constantem indicavit per quam nutritur anima, & interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur. For we eat his flesh and drink his blood, being made partakers by his incarnation both of sensible life of the word and of wisdom. For he named his whole mystical coming flesh and blood, & showed his doctrine, consisting of active, natural and theological, by which the soul is nourished, and in the mean time prepared unto the beholding of the truth. Thus by Basils' judgement, by faith in Christ's incarnation and doctrine, we eat his flesh and blood, whereof we are assured by the Sacrament, therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christ's natural flesh, to be after a corporal manner received in the Sacrament.   

CAP. V.  
Their reasons are answered, who deny Christ to speak properly 
Saunder.  of his last supper in S. john.  
The reasons are for the most part such, as Papists 
Fulke.  have made, which think in their conscience, that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacrament: against whom Saunder opposeth himself, not regarding with what conscience, but with what show of words, he may maintain his false position against all men. The arguments as he numbereth them, are five. The first is this: There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter: ergo, it speaketh not of the supper. This argument Saunder denieth, because a man may be invited to a pasty or tart, although it be not told him of what stuff it shallbe made. Good stuff I warrant you. Again, he saith, the matter of a sacrament, is not more necessary, than the form of words. But Christ saying to Nicodemus: Except a man be borne again of water, etc. although he name the matter, showeth not the words that make the Sacrament, yet speaketh he there of baptism, ergo here of the supper. I deny that he speaketh of baptism there, otherwise then of the supper here, by comprehending the seal of assurance under the promise of the thing itself. But this argument Saunder alloweth well: Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine, therefore he meaneth not to bind us to receive under both kinds, but to receive that thing which is his flesh and blood under what kind soever we receive it. If this be true, it were well done to take the bread from the people another while, & to serve them of the cup consecrated, for a whole communion. But behold the sincerity of this Academical disputer, allowing this argument to maintain horrible sacrilege, as though Christ doth not name drinking, almost as often as eating: although he name neither bread nor wine. And if his blood be drink in deed, then is it not received with the bread, which is not drunk, but eaten.  
The second argument is, Christ speaketh of eating him by faith & therefore saith: this is the work of God, that you should believe in him, whom he hath sent. He that believeth in me, shall not hunger: but there be some of you which believe not, so that the eating is believing, & the not eating is, not believing. To this argument grounded upon the authority of Scripture, he hath nothing to answer, but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ, that is of his grace by faith, & eating Christ, that is his whole flesh, blood, soul & godhead into our bodies, by colour of these words, Manducare ex hoc pane, & manducare hunc panem, which our saviour Christ manifestly confoundeth, & useth for all one. But that you may see his gross folly & madness, you must remember that he maketh these words to be the chief words of promise of his supper; The bread which I will give, is my flesh, etc. Now the whole context is this: I am that living bread which came down from heaven, if a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, & the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Mark now what will become of Sanders distinction. To eat of this bread, is to be partaker of grace, by faith, which he confesseth, may be without the Sacrament. But that bread whereof he shall eat, is the flesh of Christ, which he will give for the life of the world: therefore, to eat the flesh of Christ, is to receive Christ by grace, although it be without the Sacrament.  
The third argument is, Christ was presently the bread of life, when he spoke to the jews, saying I am the bread of life, and my father giveth you the true bread from heaven, therefore Christ was the bread of life, when he was first incarnate, for even then he came down from heaven. Therefore his words cannot be applied to his last supper, which was not yet instituted. Saunder confesseth, that Christ was by his godhead and manhood, the bread of life to be eaten of the jews, presently by faith, and not corporally. But he said also: Work the meat which the son of man will give you, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh: which gift is fulfilled in his supper. For no reason can be showed (saith he) why Christ should say, his gift was to come, except it had been some other gift then to eat him by faith alone, which was lawful at that instant. To this answer of Saunder, I reply: first that he groundeth upon a strange translation of his own, of working the meat, etc. Secondly, of a patching together of two texts that stand far a sunder. Thirdly, the work of meat spoken of in the former text, whereunto they are exhorted, is expounded of faith by Christ himself immediately after: This is the work of God, that you should believe in him whom he hath sent. Fourthly, the gift which Christ saith, in the Future tense he would give, proveth not that it was yet present, but promiseth it, to them that will receive it presently. For if a man have a Ring in his hand; he may truly say to them that stand before him: I will give a Ring to them that shall first come to me. Hear the word of giving is in the Future tense, promising the Ring to him that shall come first for it; yet for all that is the Ring still in his hand. Fifthly, this reason I show, why Christ saith, he will give his flesh for the life of the world, which presently might be eaten, and was eaten, almost four thousand years before, because his passion, by which it is communicated to the faithful of all ages, at that time when he spoke, was not performed in act, although in effect he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.  
The fourth argument, which he confesseth to be of Caietane, is that Christ's gift is not meant of his supper, because it was the gift of himself, to death upon the cross, such as shall redeem the world. Which gift was only performed upon the cross, and was partaken always of the old fathers, and may be daily and hourly partaken of us, which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christ's supper. This argument (saith Saunder) is wittily devised: no doubt, because it was used by Caietane a Papist, but yet it is insufficient for many causes.  
The first cause is, because Christ spoke of a meat that he would give, even unto our bodies, and not only unto our souls. How proveth he, that he spoke of such a meat? because he ordained the miracle of multiplying the five loaves to be an introduction unto this talk, which loaves were eaten corporally, as also that he showed himself to be the true bread, that would fulfil and exceed Manna, the figurative bread of the jews. Two blind causes, as though he might not take occasion of corporal eating, to speak of spiritual eating, as in the fourth of john, of corporal drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria, of spiritual drinking, and in the same Chapter, his Apostles of corporal eating, he teacheth them what spiritual meat was. As for the figure of Manna, of which he speaketh, as of a corporal meat, whereof they that did eat, died: our Saviour Christ was even to them that did eat it faithfully, life everlasting; & Manna was the flesh of Christ unto them. But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread, is that which is necessary to be between the bare sign, and the thing signified, from which to reason, as Saunder doth, Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually, therefore the flesh of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually; is to join together, things that are to be divided, which is a poor shift of Sophistry. Beside that, it is a ridiculous argument, to reason of the similitude of those things, wherein the auctor showeth them to be unlike. For our Saviour saith, not as your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, of which saying, it is much more probable to reason, your fathers did eat Manna corporally, therefore you shall not eat this bread which I will give corporally. But he objecteth that Origen saith: as it is alleged in the decrees, De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac. No man eateth properly the flesh of Christ as it was crucified. Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death. Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christ corporally, for he was crucified corporally. But Saunder will have us to mark, that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ, whereof he speaketh in Saint john▪ from the respect which the same flesh hath, being crucified. in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint jerom saith, the flesh of Christ is two ways to be considered. that spiritual and divine flesh, whereof he speaketh, when he saith, My flesh is meat in deed, etc. &, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. and that flesh which was crucified. This distinction is of the manner of receiving the one, which is only spiritually, and of the manner of handling the other, which was corporally, or it is that distinction which is between the effect and the cause. Such difference is by jerom, between Christ crucified, and Christ's body eaten and drunken, which Saunder would have to be all one in substance and differ only in eating.  
The second reason, that Christ speaketh of his supper, as well as of his death, is, that the Greek text mentioneth two gifts: The bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here (saith he) is, I will give, twice: ergo two gifts, and then he defendeth the Greek text to be true, although the Latin have, I will give but once. You see the cunning of the man, that can make them both serve his purpose. But it is Popish Logic, to conclude two gifts of saying twice, I will give, as in this example: The land which I will give you, is the manner of Dale, which I will give to you and to your heirs. Here is, I will give twice: therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logic. O wonderful learning of Popish Doctors!  
The third reason is, that Christ speaking of the meat, saith, the son of man dabit vobis, will give to you, and not only for you. But his death was given more properly for us, then to us. For it was paid to God for our debts, but was not properly given to us, for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to us, and consequently God the father rob of his glory. What say you Saunder? Can nothing be said properly to be given us, but that which is sacrificed unto us? So God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that every one which believeth in him, should not perish, but have life everlasting. john. 3. And isaiah saith, The son is given to us. The spirit of God is given to us, etc. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice? are you not ashamed of such senseless shifts? Christ in his death was given in sacrifice to his father for us, and his father being reconciled to us, by that sacrifice, giveth him to us, and Christ also giveth himself for us, because all the fruit of his death, and sacrifice is referred to our salvation. The fourth reason is, that Christ, naming bread, meat, food, Manna, etc. promiseth an eatable thing, which is his flesh in a banquet, the jews understood his flesh really, not erring in understanding, but in faith: for Christ confirmeth their understanding with an oath, saith: verily, verily, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. ergo, their sense which reterre the gift only to his death, is not sufficient, but it must be meant also of the last supper. This argument followeth not: for although the names of bread, food, flesh, etc. prove that Christ's flesh is eatable, yet it proveth not, that it is eatable only in the supper. Secondly, that the jews erred only in faith, it is false, for they erred also in understanding, taking the eating of Christ's flesh to be performed carnally, which he meant only spiritually. His oath confirmeth not their understanding, but his own promise of giving his flesh for the life of the world, which except they did eat spiritually, they could have no life in them. But whereas it is objected, that Christ speaketh of that gift, which was common to the whole world, even to the patriarchs & Prophets, & therefore it is a spiritual gift, for else David & Abraham could not have partaken it: he answereth, that Christ doth not pro mice any one meat unto the whole world, but his flesh to be eaten, which is given for the whole world. I reply: the words are plain, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, & not only for the jews. Neither doth Christ in his supper, give a far better meat, than he gave to Moses & Elias, for he gave even to them, his flesh & blood, to be their spiritual food unto eternal life: witness the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat & drink the same spiritual meat, that we do, and that their meat & drink was Christ. Concerning that daily we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth, he answereth, the Sacrament is left to be our daily & supersubstantial bread, either because we may receive it daily if we will, or because it tarrieth always with us by some spiritual effect.  
To this I answer, that all men cannot receive it daily, and some men not at all, which yet must have spiritual food to feed them unto everlasting life: therefore, this bread may be eaten without the Sacrament.  
The last argument that he would seem to answer, is this: Christ in S. john, speaketh of that eating, which maketh us tarry in him, & him in us, therefore not of Sacramental eating: for Christ tarrieth not in all that eat him in the Sacrament. He answereth, the fault is not in the Sacrament, but in them that abuse the gift of God to their own hurt. As though our Saviour Christ did speak only of the power of his flesh, being eaten, & not of the effect. The flesh of Christ being eaten, maketh us one with him, & him But Augustine is cited, contr. Crescon. gram. lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉. Quid de ipso corpore, &. what say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord, the only sacrifice for our salvation? Although our Lord himself saith: Except a man do eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him, doth not the Apostle teach, that the self same thing is made hurtful to them that use it evil? For he saith: whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But it followeth immediately in Augustine: E●ce quemadmodum obsint divina & sanctamatè utentibus. Cur non eodem modo baptismus? See how divine and holy things do hurt them that use them amiss. Why not baptism after the same manner? These last words declare that Augustine saying that the body and blood of Christ, may be hurtful, speaketh of the Sacrament, and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament, as in baptism. As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint john. The Sacrament of this thing, (saith he) is received of some to life, of some to destruction, but the thing itself, or matter of the Sacrament, which is the body and blood of Christ, is of none received to destruction, but of all unto life, as many as receive it. By whose whole discourse it is manifest, that Augustine understandeth Christ speaking of spiritual eating, which may be without the Sacrament: and maketh a difference between the meat there spoken of, which presently was offered to be eaten, & the Sacrament thereof which afterward was instituted. Therefore whatsoever Saunder doth glory, of all authority upon earth, concurring to his position, there is no authority from heaven, to prove, that Christ in the 6. of S. john spoke of his supper at all, or that his supper may be understood therein, otherwise then the Sacrament and seal of that spiritual and heavenly eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, which of the fathers and of all the faithful hath been eaten and drunken, unto eternal life, not only in this Sacrament, but in other Sacraments of Gods ordaining, and without all Sacraments, by faith and power of God's spirit.   

CAP. VI  
The meat tarrying to everlasting life, which Christ promiseth 
Saunder.  ●o give, is meant of his real flesh and blood to be given at his last supper.  
Saunder by conference of this verse, Operamini cibum, etc. 
Fulke.  labour for the meat, or as he translateth i●, work the meat that perisheth not, etc. with that which followeth, where he saith, the bread which I will give, etc. proveth that Christ speaketh of his flesh and blood to be eaten and drunken. But that the same is to be given only at his last supper, which is the only matter in controversy, he is not able to prove. His first reason is, that because Christ saith, his flesh is meat in deed, the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical work, by faith, but a true work of the body and soul, the one in believing, the other in eating. As though Christ is not meat truly, when he is eaten by faith in the soul, or as though a metaphorical meat, can not be called a meat truly or in deed, when Christ speaking metaphorically, saith he is a true vine. But Tertullian saith, the flesh feedeth of the body and blood of Christ, as before we have often heard, where he speaketh of external Sacraments and outward signs, as of baptism, oynting, imposition of hands, etc. What Theophylact a late writer saith, we esteem not worth the weighing. But Cyrillus he allegeth for his purpose, who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ, and not to his supper: In joan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Divina humanis, etc. He hath joined the things of man to the things of God, and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation, etc. Last of all, he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos, who expoundeth the bread, and flesh, and blood spiritually, and not of the Sacrament. Non mihi placet, etc. The perishing meat and pleasures of this life please me not. I will have the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Christ the son of God, and I will have the cup of his blood which is incorruptible love and life everlasting. If the cup of Christ's blood be incorruptible charity and life everlasting, then is it the effect of Christ's blood, that Ignatius speaketh of, and not his natural blood, which is the cause thereof. Other proves then these, Saunder hath not in this Chapter for his purpose, which prove it nothing at all.   

CAP. VII.  
The equality of substance with his father, which Christ allegeth 
Saunder.  for his gift, proveth the real presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar, even as God the father gau● him real flesh and blood at his incarnation.  
This argument is thus framed: The son of man i● equal 
Fulk.  with God his father. God the father hath given his son to the world, and made him true man, the true bread of life: therefore God the son being equal with his father, will give us the same true flesh of the son of man as meat that shall tarry with us to everlasting life. But his father gave him to the world, not only in faith and spirit, but in real and substantial flesh. Therefore God the son by drift of his talk doth signify, that he will give in his supper, whereof he speaketh, not in spirit and faith only, but in truth of nature and substance, the self same real and substantial flesh. O what sport would such an argument make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford: In which be so many terms and never a mean, so many false propositions, so many petitions of principles, so much more in the conclusion, than was in the premises, finally so many words, and so little to the purpose. But I will make answer briefly and plainly. The equally of Christ with his father, proveth in deed that he is able to do whatsoever it pleaseth him, and to perform whatsoever he promiseth. But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to give his real & substantial flesh to be eaten bodily: therefore his almighty power proveth nothing of that purpose. But he promiseth to give us the same true flesh, which he received of his father to be meat tarrying unto eternal life. This promise he performeth daily unto the elect, making his body and blood which was crucified and shed for us, to be food of everlasting continuance. Yea (saith Saunder) but God gave him to the world, not only in faith and spirit, but in truth of nature and substance: therefore Christ will give us his real flesh in substance not in faith and spirit only. A strange argument, God gave Christ to the world in the true nature and substance of flesh, not in spirit and faith only. What mean you by this: God gave him not in spirit and faith only? For any thing that I understand of your meaning, God gave him not in faith & spirit at all. For when you speak of Christ's incarnation, and of God sending him in the flesh, what sense is it to say, he sent him in faith or in spirit? But God gave him natural flesh, and God gave him to the world manifested in the flesh. But how doth the world receive him being given in real and substantial flesh? How did all the patriarchs, Prophets, and elect before the time of his incarnation receive him, who being given to the world, must needs be given to them also? Verily no otherwise, then in spirit and by faith. Even so Christ promising to give his flesh and his blood to be meat & drink unto us, meaneth not, that it should otherwise be received then in spirit and by faith, either in his supper or in baptism, or without any of the Sacraments. And hereunto the divine power of Christ serveth to assure our faith, that he can give us his very natural and divine flesh, to be received spiritually, and faithfully, to feed and nourish us unto life everlasting assuredly.   

CAP. VIII.  
Seeing Christ is the bread of life to us by the gift of his 
Saunder.  flesh, the eating of that flesh by our faith and spirit sufficeth not, but itself also must be really eaten.  
It is marvel, why it should not suffice us to eat hi● flesh, which is the bread of life, as all the children of 
Fulke.  God did eat it before his incarnation, and as many thousands since, which have been partakers of eternal life, and yet never were admitted to the lords supper. But Saunder sayeth, it is expressly against the word of God, that by the incarnation of Christ, we have not the bread of life given us by any other way than we had it before. The reason belike is this: That the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ, as who came into the world to bring us this everlasting meat. Mark this Popish divinity which restraineth the virtue of Christ's incarnation to the instant & time, in which he took flesh, and thereby denieth eternal life to all the patriarchs and Prophets, who by his reason never tasted of the bread of life. He talketh much, and to little or no purpose of the controversy, that the godhead is life properly, which that it might be communicated to us, it assumpted flesh, and this flesh is made meat for us, but what is the conclusion? It is given at Christ's supper, under the form of bread, no other mean of giving will serve. Doth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternal life, which have not been admitted to the Sacrament? and yet like a foolish hypocrite, he crieth out of our cruelty, which depriving men of the true flesh of Christ, deprive them of the godhead and of eternal life. Whereas he slandereth us altogether: for we affirm, that every one of Gods elect from the beginning of the world, hath been fed truly with the very natural flesh of Christ, but spiritually received, and by other means then under the form of bread in the supper, namely by faith, and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion, and might come to them, and even without faith and without Sacraments (in such of Gods elect, as lacking age were prevented by death, before they could be partakers of sacraments) by the only working of God's holy spirit, who no less worketh in this wonderful spiritual nourishment, then in any spiritual regeneration.  
And therefore Saunder reasoneth like a gross Philosopher, when he saith: that no sign is able to comiey that heavenly bread to us. It is horrible blasphemy to say, that my faith is able to derive the substance of God, as meat into my soul and body, seeing faith is but a creature only, wherein the fullness of Godhead dwelleth not, and therefore is not able to attain to the union of God's nature, and much less able to give it me. And yet for all this that Saunder sayeth, the Apostle prayeth that Christ, in whom the fullness of the godhead dwelleth corporally, may dwell in our hearts by faith. In deed, not by the worthiness of faith, but by the grace of the holy spirit, who giveth strength to the weak elements of the world, and to our unperfect faith, to bring to pass wonderful effects, as we may see in baptism. Wherefore, to reason of the weakness of signs, and unableness of faith, severally from the spirit of God, is as much, as if you would go about to prove, that because a man's body without his soul can do nothing, therefore, being united to his soul, it is not of force to do any thing. To prove that we cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh, he allegeth Cyrillus and Augustine, whose authorities, it is needless to repeat, seeing we grant as much as he would have to be proved by them. But beside them, he citeth Hilarius lib. 8. de Trinit. Si verè verbum, etc. If the word be truly made flesh, and in our lords meat, we truly receive the word made flesh, how can it be but he must be judged to dwell naturally in us? Hereof, he gathereth that we receive Christ into our bodies after a carnal manner of receiving, which is far from Hilaries meaning, although he use the word naturally, which even Saunder must confess to be unproperly used, or else he shall admit many unnatural conclusions. Wherefore by naturally, he meaneth properly, verily, and truly, yet after a divine and spiritual manner, not after a gross, natural, and sensible manner of habitation.  
Again, this dwelling of Christ in us naturally, doth not prove, that he is corporally received into our mouths, and settled in our stomachs. But this is sufficient to prove, that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually received, in that he affirmeth, it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receive his flesh in the lords meat. Saunder addeth, worthily: But Hilary sayeth, truly. Therefore whosoever truly receiveth the flesh of Christ in the meat of our Lord, Christ must needs dwell in him naturally: but Christ dwelleth not at all in the ungodly, therefore the ungodly receive not his flesh in the lords meat, as the Papists say, in whom also he should dwell naturally, if he were received truly, or as they say, corporally.   

CAP. IX.  
By the three diverse givings, which are named in Saint john, 
Saunder  it is showed, that Christ giveth his real flesh under the figure of another thing.  
The three times of giving, do not prove that three 
〈◊〉.  diverse things are given (neither doth Saunder say one word to prove that they do) and where is then the ground of this disputation? God by Moses (sayeth Saunder) is said to have given in time past, he hath given them bread from heaven to eat. But Christ sayeth, Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven: Even he which gave them Manna for a Sacrament of the true bread, even he gave then, giveth now, and shall give for ever the true bread from heaven, which is the flesh of our Saviour Christ incarnate, crucified, revived, and ascended into heaven for our salvation. And how can Saunder prove, that Christ saying, he will give his flesh, meaneth any other gift than God his father did always give, except he refer his giving to the time of his passion, the fruit whereof was and is given unto the end of the world. That the bread which Christ giveth, is true under a figure, that is the form of bread, fulfilling the figure of Manna, is a dream of Sanders own head, for Christ speaketh not of any giving under a figure or form of bread, or of giving the bread of his supper, but of the general food of eternal life, which it is necessary that all they be partakers of, which shallbe partakers of eternal life. And therefore it is out of measure absurd, that Saunder would prove his figurative form by Irenaeus, which saith, that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things, of one earthly, which is the form of bread and wine, the other heavenly &c: Irenaeus saith, not that the forms of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament, but bread and wine in deed, for those external forms or accidents, be not any earthly thing, which is a substantial matter. Irenaeus saith, of the bread and wine, our bodies are increased and nourished: so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But he will show the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion. If Christ's gift (saith he) consisted of the substance of bread sanctified in quality, and made a sign of his body (as the sacramentaries teach) it should neither be the true bread, which his father gave him, nor better than Manna, &c: But where do the Sacramentaries teach, that Christ's gift spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in quality etc. We teach that Christ's gift is his own natural body and blood given in his passion to all the faithful of the world, to be the food of eternal life, as for the substance of bread given in his last supper, we teach that it is a Sacrament and seal of this gift. Therefore he must seek other Sacramentaries to fight against, if any such be. For we teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments, according to the word of God, making difference as all Christian divines have done before us, of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament.   

CAP. X.  
By the shadow of the law past, and by the naked truth to come 
Saunder.  in heaven, it is perceived that the middle state of the new Testament requireth the real presence of Christ's body under the form of bread.  
He groundeth upon the 10. to the Hebrews: The Law 
F●lke.  hath the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of things: applying the shadow to the Law, the image to the gospel, and the things themselves to the life to come. In which application, he seethe not how he granteth to the Gospel, but an image of things, and not the things themselves, and thereby in deed, denieth the very flesh of Christ to be given us, but an image thereof, For his gloss will not stand with the Apostles words, that we have the very flesh of Christ under the image o● form of bread, the Apostle saying, we have the image of things: which image if it be none other, but the accidents of bread, we have no great prerogative above the Law. In deed the Apostle meaneth, that the same things which were but rudely shadowed, as it were with a coal, to the fathers in the Law, are in a lively image described, and set forth unto us in the Gospel. For the Gospel hath not those good things which are to come, but possesseth them by faith. Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Saunder, upon this text? Christ gave us his real flesh under the form of bread, or else he gave not the thing itself: and if he gave it without figure, out state were not an image of the things themselves. Whereas the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are given, but of the clearness of the doctrine, of those things which are promised: and therefore he calleth them good things to come, and Christ an high Priest of good things to come. As mad, yea and more frantic is that conclusion, that Christ cannot be a mediator between the two Testaments, except he gave his flesh under the form and figure of bread. By which drunken conclusion, it should follow, that Christ's mediation depended upon the institution of the Sacrament, which the Apostle in express words doth affirm to have been made complete in his death, which was effectual unto all ages alike. Heb. 9 Also that Christ in Baptism, hath not showed himself to be a mediator greater than Moses, because he hath not therein given us his natural flesh, which is in heaven: And last of all, that Christ is not a mediator unto the fathers that lived before the institution of his supper, but only to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper. Again, as untrue it is, that because Christ came to fulfil the Law, therefore it was necessary, that he should give his flesh under a figure: which flesh was not given to them that lived under the Law: as though there were one mean of salvation for them, and another for us.  
The scripture doth often distinguish the Law, and the Gospel, showing what is peculiar to either of them, but it never affirmeth, that the persons living in the time of the strength of Moses Law, were saved otherwise then by the Gospel, that is by remission of sins, through faith in the mercy of God reconciled to us by jesus Christ. Therefore it is more than blockish, to wrest the distinction of the Testaments, to make a difference of the salvation of the persons. Seeing the new Testament was not first ordained (as Saunder seemeth to say) when Christ did institute his supper, which he called the new Testament, but even from the beginning of the world, but yet to take effect, virtue and strength, by the death of Christ, of which Testament, the supper is a sacrament, bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament, as well when it is called the new Testament, as when it is called the body and blood of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept, of not killing, expounded by Christ to extend to anger, proveth not any new truth to be added by the Gospel, but the ancient right meaning of the commandment, delivered from the gloss of the Pharisees, which expounded the precept, only of murdering with the hand. For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth, was lawful before the time he made that exposition; or that to commit adultery in heart, by lusting after a woman, was not sin, before Christ did so interpret that commandment. If it were sin, than it was a breach of the Law: if it were a breach of the Law, it was of the Law that was given: therefore the Law was always spiritual, and had that true meaning, and was so taken of all good men, before Christ reproved the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses. That all legal instruction, and prophetical figures, are transferred into the sacraments of Christ, as Leo saith, we agree. We deny not, that which Dionyse saith, although we may not acknowledge him to have been S. Paul's scholar: that our holy government partaketh of heaven, spiritual contemplation, and of the Law sensible signs. Neither of both these authorities prove the matter in question. As for the distinction of gifts, whereunto Sand. tumbleth again, in the end of this chapter, we make not void by our figurative doctrine. But such distinction as was in deed, between that which Moses gave, and God gave, we uphold by our figurative doctrine, which showeth the right difference between the auctor and the minister, the sign & the thing signified. But that distinction between the gift which the Father gave always, and that which the son promiseth to give to be diverse, when Saunder can prove, we may be brought to acknowledge it: In the mean time, that promise of continuance of that gift, in the Future temps, which Christ hath always given, is a slender argument to prove the distinction of gifts imagined by Saunder.  
Finally in substance of the food of eternal life, as we differ not in the life eternal itself, we are not preferred before the jews. They did all eat the same spiritual meat &c: Our prefermente is more clear sight and understanding, even such difference as is between the knowledge, obtained by a description of a body shadowed, and lively set forth in colours, which is the shadow and very image that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 10.   

CAP. XI.  
The bread that Christ promiseth to give which is his flesh, must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh. 
Saunder.   
There is no doubt but Christ did give the substance 
Fulke.  of his flesh, which being crucified for us, is made the bread of life and spiritual meat and drink to be received of us, not after any corporal manner of eating, but by faith in spirit, not only in the Sacrament of his supper, but in baptism also, and without any sacrament. But that it must stand for a truth universally received, that Christ saying, The bread which I will give is my flesh, meant the bread which I will give you at my last supper, that I say I deny. What Saunder vaunteth he hath proved thereof, in the 5. and 6. chapters of this book, let it be examined with mine answer. But admit he had spoken principally of his supper, yet doth it not follow, which Saunder doth infer, that he promised to give his flesh to judas because he was one of the twelve which tarried with him at Capernaum, for his promise in offer, was as large to all that departed, and to the world, for the life whereof he promised to give his flesh, therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not only a spiritual gift that was promised but an external gift delivered by hand, which judas might receive. For Christ promiseth such a gift, as if it be received, worketh eternal life in the receivers.  
Finally, it cannot be proved, that judas was present at the supper, who departed about his treason, before the institution of the sacrament, as appeareth by saint john immediately after the sop received, whereunto some of the ancient writers also do consent. Furthermore, that the gift of Christ doth differ from the gift of his father in person and time, and therefore cannot be given by faith only, it is no good consequent. For God gave his son for the world, and Christ gave himself for us, yet but one gift. The difference of time, I have often answered. As for the objection, that he feigneth the Sacramentaries must say, that that flesh here standeth for the sign or figure of his flesh, is of his own making, for as I said before, we understand the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world, his natural body, crucified for us, and not the sacrament of his body given in his last supper.   

CAP. XII.  
A further declaration of the real presence of Christ's body and 
Saunder.  blood, taken out of the discourse of his own words concerning the different eating of him by faith, and the receiving of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar.  
First he repeateth his three gifts. God gave by Moses, 
Fulke.  naked figures, as Manna: God giveth presently, the flesh of Christ to our eyes and hearts: and Christ will give hereafter the same flesh, under the form of bread. Of these gifts he maketh three diverse works: the first by teeth and belly, the second by faith and spirit, and the third by both. The gift of Christ differing from Manna, is expressed in the Chapter. But any difference of the gift of the father, and of the son, there is not expressed, nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument. Yet Saunder hath found out a great number of differences, to prove that although the Father and the Son give one thing, that is the flesh of Christ, yet not one way to be received, the Father giveth it to be received by faith only, the Son to be received corporally.  
The first difference is, of the time, The Father doth give in the Present tense, the Son will give in the Future tense. This I have often answered to be no different, for Christ saith in the present temps, except ye do eat the flesh: etc. ergo he did presently give it. Again, he that doth eat often, is often times repeated, in the present time, and my flesh is meat in deed: all which prove that Christ's gift, was present when he spoke to be received, therefore it differeth not from the Father's gift, and way of receiving the same.  
The second difference: the Father giveth Christ in the form of man, by the manner of the Father's gift, the faithful may see that son of Man, upon whom they believe: as it is said, This is the will of my Father which sent me, that every one who seethe the Son, and believeth in him, may have everlasting life. And again: ye have seen me, and have not believed. Of the sons gift it is not said, that his flesh shallbe seen, but rather insinuated, that it shallbe under the covering of another kind of food. I answer, that Christ in neither of both these sayings, speaketh of the corporal sight of his body. But in the one which is first placed in S. john, Ye 〈◊〉 au: seen me, and not believed; he exprobrateth to the jews their wilful blindness, which had acknowledged him before to be the Messiah, when he fed their bellies, & now refuse to believe him, when he offereth to feed their souls. In the other place, he showeth, that obedience of faith joined to a manifest acknowledging of Christ, by the will of God, is the way to eternal life. For if seeing, should be taken for bodily seeing of Christ's flesh, it could not extend to us which cannot bodily behold him. Again, this difference overthroweth Sanders supposed way of the father's giving, which is by faith and spirit only & not sensibly to the eye of the body. Last of all, it is a weak argument, it is not said in this or that text: ergo it is not meant, or it is not true at all.  
The 3. difference: The Father's gift is called the true bread from heaven: The sons gift is called, not only true bread, but also truly bread and meat in deed. Some true meat may chance not to be truly meat, because it is not eaten: but nothing is meat in deed, and truly meat, except it be in deed eaten. If this difference be worth a straw, than your consecrated hosts be not the sons gift, before they be eaten: and except they be eaten (as some time ye wo●● well they are burned) they be not his gift at all; if not his gift, than not flesh and blood. The difference of a true Vine, and a Vine truly, is sufficiently discussed in the later end of the fourth book answered by master Nowell. Saunder cannot or will not consider the difference of the opposition between truly and falsely, and truly and properly.  
The fourth difference: The jews and disciples, went not away from Christ, for any thing, that was spoken about the Father's gift, thinking that a gift of eating by faith, might stand with the custom of God's people, but in the sons gift, they saw more apparent absurdity, not lacking understanding, but faith, and therefore departed. I answer, they lacked understanding, as much as faith, and therefore Augustin● saith: Sed qui aderant plures, non intelligendo s●andaliazti sunt: non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem, quod ipsi erant. But many of them that were present, were offended for lack of understanding: For heating these things, they thought on nothing but flesh, which they themselves were. It is a simple difference, that is gathered of the Iewes ignorance and incredulity.  
The 5. difference, The gift of the father is called by such names only, as belong to the person of Christ, or to his divine nature to say, the bread of life, the lively bread, the true bread (for God only is absolutely the true bread of life) or by the pronoun I: The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his human nature, to wit, the flesh and blood of the son of men. If this difference prove any thing, it proveth not the diverse ways of giving the same thing, but that the same thing is not given by the Father and the Son: Where as Saunder said before, that the Father giveth Christ in human nature, to the world. If the human nature of Christ be given of the father, the names thereof may well agree to the Father's gift.  
The 6 difference, That Christ endeth his talk of each gif●, with repeating the old figure Manna, betokening by both, the shadow of Manna to be fulfilled. But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sons gift. This is an agreement rather than a difference, except in the last illation, which is a mere begging of the matter in question. But there is a great difference, in that it is said of the one, If any man eat, ex hoc pane of this bread; in the other, he that eateth hunc panem this bread: and here is made a great difference, between eating of Christ, and eating Christ himself: the one is only by faith, the other in the Sacrament of the Altar, the one is to be partaker of the virtue and grace of Christ, the other to receive the substance of Christ. etc. But our saviour Christ in S. john confoundeth this difference, using the Accusative case and the Ablative: with the preposition, for all one. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven, if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: Here is the Ablative with a preposition, but what is this bread, of which he that eateth shall, live? he answereth: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, whereof he saith afterward, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c: where he useth the Accusative: by which it is plain, that with Christ, to eat this bread, & to eat of this bread, is all one. Saint Paul also overthroweth this difference, showing that the Israelites did drink of the spiritual Rock, which was Christ, unworthily, where as none can receive the effect of Christ's death unworthily. So he saith we are all partakers of one bread. But Sand, not satisfied, asketh if this be the end of our long disputation, that Christ came into the world to give a less token, than God had given before, under Moses & c? as though Christ came into the world for no end but to give the sacrament. As for so many differences as he dreameth of his father's gift, and his, we find not any one, but that they may all agree in one gift, which was not his supper, but himself to death, for the life of the world, whereof every one of his elect is made partaker, as of spiritual food, by faith & his holy spirit.  
But this difference is learned, saith he, out of Chrysostom, upon john. Ho. 45. etc. where he noteth first the diversity of persons, saying: See, non patrem, that he, not his father dare to give (saith Saunder) but he falsifieth Chrysostom, which saith dedisse, to have given, which proveth that it is not given only in the Sacrament, which then was not instituted. 2 That he saith, Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his divinity, and about the end, of his body, proveth not that he speaketh only of the Sacrament: For Hom. 45. he saith plainly, as Saunder confesseth, that the bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ, and salvation, and faith in him, or else his body. Wherein he dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation, who will not have the body of Christ promised before flesh be named.  
But Chrysostom saith upon these words: my flesh is meat in deed: etc. that he so said, to the end they should not think him to speak in parables; but by flesh, to mean the sign of flesh, or by eating, to mean believing is to speak in parables. I answer, that we say neither of both: but that Christ is verily eaten by faith, and by the spirit of God: yet Saunder omitteth the other cause which Chrysostom rendereth of his so saying: A●● quòd is est verus cibus, etc. either that he is the true meat which saveth the soul, or else etc. But he saveth not the soul only by eating the Sacrament: therefore this meat is not eaten only in the sacrament.  
Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is joined unto us, not by faith and love only, but in very deed: We confess, but so is he joined to infants that never received the supper, and so was he joined to all the faithful before his incarnation, in as much as they all were members of his body. And so confesseth Chrysostom, in joan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, shall be partaker of the resurrection, and therefore Christ said, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life eternal and I will raise him up in the last day. The testimonies of Theophilact, and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison, I will not stand upon.   

CAP. XIII.  
The like precept made to men of lawful age for eating Chris●● flesh, as was made generally for baptism, showeth his flesh to be 
Saunder  as really present in his supper, as water is in baptism.  
Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptism, neither the other of the lords supper. 
Fulk.  And the necessity of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, is not ●aide only upon men of lawful age, because they were of lawful age to whom Christ spoke, any more than the necessity of regeneration upon all men, seeing Nicodemus, to whom Christ said, Except a man be borne &c. was of lawful age. For spiritual food, which is nothing else but the body & blood of Christ, is as necessary for all ages, as for perfect age. But that the flesh of Christ is as necessary in the supper to feed us, as water in Baptism to wash us, it is a froward and foolish comparison: for water washeth not our souls, nor regenerateth us, but the holy ghost, whereof water is a sign: so the flesh of Christ is as necessary in the supper to feed us, as the holy ghost, to wash us and regenerate us, which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirit, likewise doth the flesh and blood of Christ nourish us, without transubstantiation of the outward signs into them. The right Analogy is between water, and bread, and wine, and between the spirit of God, and the flesh and blood of Christ, not between outward water & spiritual flesh of Christ, which is as preposterous a comparison, is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptism, with the bread and wine in the sacrament. But of the error of Cyprian, Innocentius, and Augustine, he will prove, the necessity of the presence of Christ's flesh in the supper, because they gave the communion to infants, that could not receive it with faith & understanding: therefore they thought the very body & blood of Christ to be really contained in the sacrament. I answer it was not because they thought so, but because they thought the one sacrament as necessary as the other, which might, and may in deed be ministered to infants, that have not faith nor understanding actually. Therefore that they ministered the communion to infants, it showed their error proceeding of ignorance, as all error doth: but it showeth not, that they thought the one sacrament to be other wise than the other, a seal or assurance of justification, without any dream of transubstantiation. That Sand would excuse their custom to have been used more for a security, then for necessity, is to no purpose. It is manifest that they thought erroneously, that the eternal sign or seal was necessary in both, as Aug. & Innocent. B. of Rome hath defined, denying eternal life to infants that died without the communion and baptism, as though the grace of God had been necessarily tied to the outward elements.   

CAP. XIIII.  
That S. Augustine did not teach th●se words: Except ye ea● the 
Saunder.  flesh &c: To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit, nor yet the eating of material bread with faithful remembrance of him, but the eating of his flesh, to the end we may be the better joined to the spirit of God.  
There is no better way to be joined to the spirit of 
Fulk.  god, them by eating the flesh of Christ spiritually, which Aug. doth teach, not the carnal manner of eating which Saunder doth defend. S. Aug. de doct. Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Saunder doth confess, affirmeth that this speech of Christ, Except ye eat that flesh &c: containeth a figure. And what the meaning of this figure is, August. telleth us: It is a figure (saith he) commanding, that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord, and that we should sweetly and profitably remember, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. But Saunder replieth, first against the Lutherans, that August. calling this speech a figure, meaneth not to deny that it appertaineth to the last supper. And which of the Lutherans I pray you, denied, that it appertaineth to the last supper, although they deny that it is singularly spoken of the last supper? Secondly he fathereth upon the Zwinglians an untruth, that they grant the place to be understood of Christ's last supper, to prove the necessity of both kinds, which is a fable: for they grant none otherwise, than I have often showed, & yet a good argument for necessity of both kinds may be taken out of that place, because Christ giveth us a perfect nourishment of meat and drink, or as justine saith, of d●ie and moist nourishment, unto which spiritual truth, the external seal must be made consormable. But now, will Saunder teach us to understand, what S. Augustine meaneth by a figurative speech, which is all one as if he would teach us to go to supper, as it is in the Greek proverb. First a figurative speech must not deny any word in the speech, to be used unproperly, but is measured by faith and good manners. Whereas Augustine telleth us, that if in any sentence of the scripture, the words sound against faith, & good manners, the words must not be taken in their proper sense, but they are a figure, and signify some other thing, than the words in their proper taking do sound, as diverse examples which he bringeth in the same place, beside his plain words, do declare. This saying he affirmeth to be a figurative speech, Thou shalt heap burning coals on his head, which he doth thus interpret: Vt intelligas carbones ignis, esse urentes poenitentiae gemitus, quibus superbia sanatur eius, qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis, a quo eius miseriae subvenitur: That thou m●ist understand coals of fire, to be the burning groanings of repentance, by which his pride is healed, which sorroweth that he hath been enemy of such a man, by whom his misery is helped. Behold, even as coals of fire in this text, are not taken in their proper sense, for a bodily substance of wood incensed: so is not eating and drinking in the other sentence, taken in the proper sense, for receiving at our mouth, chawing and swallowing, But as Augustine interpreteth, for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirit, etc. either in the Sacrament, or without it. And it is a foolish cavil of Saunder, to say that charity is not broken, when we eat Christ whole under the form of bread, without hurting of him, etc. For Augustine counteth it slagitium, an heinous offence, to eat the flesh of man in proper sense of eating, that is corporally: Yea, faith Saunder, to eat it in pieces, as it is sold in though shambles. As though to eat an whole man after that manner, were not more monstrous, then to eat a piece of him. But Saunder to show his sincerity, rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which, how cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see. Durum illis visum est etc. It seemed an hard thing to the jews: except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have life everlasting. They took it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and supposed that our Lord minded to cut of certain small pieces of his body, and to give them. This is an hard talk, say they. They were hard, & not the talk. For if they were not hard but gentle, they would say to themselves: He speaketh not this thing rashly, but because there lieth privy some sacrament being gentle & not hard they would tati with him, & shall learn of him that thing which after their departure, those learned who tarried. For when the twelve had tarried with him (the other being departed) they (as who were sorry for the others departing) warned Christ that they were offended with his word, & so were departed. But Christ instructed them and said: it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth not, the words which I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. Understand that which I have spokenspiritually. Ye shall not eat this body which you see, we shall not drink that blood which they shall shed, who will crucify me: I have commended to you a certain Sacrament, which being spiritually understood, shall make you live. And although that Sacrament must needs be visibly celebrated, yet it must be invisibly understanded. Three things Saunder noteth out of this saying: First against the Lutherans, that Augustine understandeth the precept of eating Christ's flesh of the Sacrament. I answer, that Augustine in other places, and namely in his purposed commentary of that place, understandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament, but otherwise also: which is all that we affirm and deny of referring this place to the Sacrament. Secondly he noteth against the Zwinglians, that the figurative speech which Augustine saith to be in these words, is to be meant of the manner of eating, in the natural understanding of c●r●all men, by cutting, tearing, chawing, etc. not denying the substance of his flesh whole, sound, and quick, to be eaten under the form of bread. I answer the natural understanding of carnal men is by eating to receive in at the mouth that which is eaten etc. wherefore Augustine denieth that also. Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his book de doct. Christ, he called a figure, taking the name of a figure for a holy sign of an higher truth. This is a grosle and shameless collection, for he calleth the words of Christ a figure, and a figurative and unproper speech, which must not be taken according to the sound of the words: S● hoc propri 〈…〉 sonat, nulla pute●ur figurata locu●i●. If it sound this properly, then let it be taken for no figurative speech. By which words you see that a figurative speech is an unproper speech. But how can this snake slide away from those words of Augustine? You shall not eat that body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed, I commend unto you a Sacrament. Therefore the Sacrament is not his body which then was seen, nor his blood which afterward was shed. But Saunder gliding over these words, as though he saw them not, presuming upon the credulity of Papists, which must believe that they make nothing against the carnal manner of presence, if he say so: he passeth to another saying of Augustine in joan. Tr. 26. &. 27. to prove that the error of the jews was not concerning the substance of the flesh that must be eaten really, but concerning the manner of eating of it. Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo, etc. They understood flesh, so as it is torn in a carcase, or sold in the shambles, and not as it is quickened with the spirit of God. I answer, this was one of their errors, but not all. For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ, denying them his natural body and blood: ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner: & in joan Tr. 24. he saith: Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum. Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius, certè vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis, errogas corpus suum, vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. They thought, that he would give out his body, but he said, that be would ascend into heaven whole. When you shall see the son of man ascending where he was before, certainly even then at lest you shall see, that he giveth not out his body after that manner you think, even then at lest you shall understand, that his grace is not consumed with bitings. In these words, the argument of his ascension, taketh away all corporal presence as well of Christ whole, as broken in pieces, secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed with biting, showeth after what manner he understandeth his body to be present, namely by spiritual grace, not by corporal substance. Therefore all Sanders jangling of signs and figures, is to no purpose. For when he hath prated what he can, a sign shall never be the thing which it signifieth; nor a figure the same thing that it figureth, except opposites may agree to one thing at one time, and in one respect.  
For to use his own foolish example, a loaf of bread, which a baker setteth out, to signify that bread is there to be fold, although it be of that kind of bread, which it signifieth to be in the house in greater quantity, yet it is not that same bread, whereof it is the sign. No more is the Sacrament, that same thing, whereof it is a sign, and yet an assured testimony that the thing signified is given to our souls and faith, as certainly as the sign to our bodies. But because Augustine saith, except ye eat my flesh, are words figurative. Saunder will reason thus: as cunningly I warrant you, as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford. The eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, being real deeds which must be performed in Christ's supper, and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e words, must needs be figures of somewhat, and the deeds and words being referred to the supper, must needs betoken somewhat, as they are considered. But the eating of the flesh in Christ's supper, can betoken nothing at all, except his flesh be there eaten▪ the eating whereof may be the ground of this betokening. Therefore these words import of necessity, that in Christ's supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten, and his blood is really dr●nken. For the flesh of Christ can not be made the figure of bakery bread, etc.  
O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophister's schools, if such an argument came among them, which reasoneth jointly of things to be divided! Augustine saith the words are figurative, & not the deeds of eating & drinking, which are signified by the words, Except ye eat, etc.  
The words I say, of eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, are figurative, betokening another thing than they sound in common and proper understanding; and what they signify, he showeth, the communication with the passion of Christ, and profitable remembrance of his death, which as they are represented in the supper, so may we eat and drink his flesh and blood without the Sacrament, by faith and working of God's spirit. But (saith Saunder) if the eating of Christ's flesh be not the figure, the words Except ye eat my flesh, be not figurative. See you not how this fond Sophister, confoundeth the distinction which he himself before had made of figurative speeches and figures of things themselves? between rhetorical figures and sacramental figures. I say the spiritual eating which is the communication, with his passion, etc. is not a figure, but that which is understood by those figurative words, except ye eat the flesh, etc.  
And although there may be a real eating to warn us of spiritual eating; yet that spiritual eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ, etc. may be without the Sacrament, and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry.  
But now he will discover the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these words: the first is, that they make the words of Christ to be figurative only passively, whereas they are also figurative actively. But how I pray you are the words figurative actively? He answereth, the actual eating of Christ's flesh, is not only said to be figured, but also is taught to be a figure itself, of another spiritual eating.  
If Saunder were as ignorant, as his arguments are absurd, he were the most notable Ass, that ever wrote in divinity, but I impute it not to ignorance, but to malicious deceitfulness, that he confoundeth words and deeds, and reasoneth thus: the words be figurative actively, because the deed is figurative actively, which is such a monster, as Sophistry never bred a greater. And what proof have you of this actual eating of Christ's flesh, to be a figure actively of spiritual eating? Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose, 〈◊〉 1. Cor. Cap. 11. wherein he chargeth us with corrupting his words, with evil pointing or distincting, which he doth himself most manifestly. For upon these words he writeth: Mortem Domini annuntiantes done● venerit.) Qui● morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus. So often as you shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you shall show the lords death until he come.) Because (saith that writer) we are delivered by the death of our Lord, we being mindful of this thing in eating and drinking do signify the flesh and blood which were offered for us. But Saunder readeth, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood, we signify those things which were offered for us. Against this wresting by mispointing, first is the relative quae, which lacketh an antecedent, if flesh and blood which was offered for us, be not signified: Secondly the words Carnem & sanguinem are put absolutely, not showing whose they are, and the relative is referred to uncertain things. For if he had meant the same to be eaten which was offered, he would have said not quae but eadem, last of all the accusative case following the verbs eating and drinking, can be reasonably none other in an expositor, but the accusative case which Paul useth, that is this bread and this cup.  
The second fowl error of the Sacramentaries, is that they expound the words of Christ: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, that is to say the figure of his flesh, which is bread and wine. And here he crieth what ignorance? what abusing of God's word? what blasphemy? where is honesty? where is shamefastness? where is common understanding? I answer, that for honesty and shamefastness, it is in the devil, as soon as in Saunder. For what honesty or shamefastness is it? thou a●●ant traitor, and stinking heretic, to feign such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries, as if thou wouldst hang thyself, thou canst not find that ever any used, or said, that the flesh of Christ is a figure of bread and wine, or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and blood, spoke of a figure thereof. But if no man have either written or spoken so, thou wilt perhaps infer it of other sayings or writings of theirs, which say, those words belong to the supper so truly, that they build falsely, upon them the necessity of both kinds. But wilt thou not understand by an hundredth times repeating, that none of us referreth those words or any other in that Chapter, unto the supper, otherwise, then as the supper is a sacrament, seal, or outward token ordained of Christ to confirm our faith in that doctrine of our spiritual food, to be given by him unto eternal life, which is given to the worthy receiver in that Sacrament, in baptism, and without either of them, by the working of God's spirit only in some, in men of discretion not without faith? As for the necessity of both kinds, is proved by that analogy which ought to be between the things signified & the signs: and also upon your own concession, who understanding those words only of sacramental eating and drinking, may no more exclude drinking then you can do eating.   

CAP. XV.  
Christ's flesh being meat in deed, must needs be really received 
Saunder.  into our bodies.  
Three things (saith Saunder) must be considered of him 
Fulk.  that will know, why the flesh of Christ is called meat in deed. The first, that the jews asked how he would give his flesh to be eaten. The second, that Christ saith, the eating of his flesh was necessary and profitable, both for body and soul. The third, that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason. For my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: that is, it hath truly and in deed, those properties, that any man would wish for in true meat. But the properties of true meat are, to be received into the body, and to be a medicine against death. If none be true meat, but that which is received into the body, then that which Saunder so often calleth the father's gift, the bread of life, which came down from heaven is not true meat, for that he hath often said, may be received by saith and spirit not entering into the body, yet thereof saith Christ, that he is the true bread. But Chrysostom upon these words, My flesh is meat in deed, etc. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat, which saveth the soul, or else he speaketh it to confirm them in the former words, that they should not think him to have spoken in parables darkly, but that they should know it to be by all means necessary, to eat his body, in joan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses (saith Saunder) must needs grant that the true eating of the flesh, standeth not for eating truly the sign of the flesh, because he spoke not obscurely in parables. Verily he were worthy to wear a coxcomb, that would say true eating of the flesh, standeth for eating truly the sign of the flesh. Against whom then doth Saunder fight, but against an idol of his own brain? but it is an obscure saying to put eating for believing. I answer, Chrysostom speaketh of the meat, and not of the manner of eating: for if there be no obscurity in the manner of eating, let Saunder speak of his small conscience, when he saith the manner of eating to be under another kind, than itself is, which is most obscure and imperceptible. But if his flesh be called meat, because it must be eaten bodily, wherefore then is his blood called drink in deed, which Saunder holdeth not to be necessary to be drunk bodily? For if his blood in that sense be drink in deed, it must be drunk in deed, and not eaten with the body. But Augustine, lib. 13. De civitate Dei. Cap ●0. sayeth: Tanquam caetera, etc. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment; the tree of life, a Sacrament: So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort, in the bodily Paradise, as the wisdom of God is in the spiritual intelligible Paradise. Of which wisdom it is written, It is the tree of life, to all that embraece it. What can Saunder make of this saying? As corporal tasting in the tree of life, was necessary for the spiritual effect of incorruption, so Christ's flesh must be corporally tasted that it may be meat indeed. I deny the comparison, which should be made of the tree with bread, and of life with Christ, and not of wood with the flesh of Christ. And it is certain, that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament, but also calling Christ, the spiritual part of the sacrament, the wisdom of God, which is a tree of life to all that embrace him, signifieth that Christ is otherwise received, then with the mouth: for embracing is more aptly said to be with the arms of faith, then with the lips of the body, who can not touch the wisdom of God. But Saunder once again to make his matter good, repeateth his rank and rotten distinction of two gifts, two givers, two manners of eating, true meat, and meat truly: affirming meat truly to be because it is received in at the mouth, and goeth into the body, after such sort, as other meats do, although it nourish spiritually. Where there is no effect of that he calleth meat truly, but it is by plain words of the Chapter, ascribed to that which is called true meat, which he confesseth may be received only spiritually: even the virtue of raising up our bodies: for which cause he would make the bodily eating to be necessary. He that believeth in me, hath life eternal, and I will raise him up again in the last day.  
afterward, he citeth Hilary: who presseth the word verè against the Arrians. But yet Saunder translateth him falsely. For to make it seem, that Hilary spoke of such bodily eating as he doth, he turneth these words, Haec accepta atque hausta efficiunt: these things taken and swallowed: whereas he should say, these things, that is the flesh and blood of Christ, being taken and drunken, do cause this, that both Christ is in us, and we in him, which must needs be taken for eating and drinking spiritually: For eating & drinking his flesh corporally, Saunder confesseth to have no such effect. How Christ tarrieth in us naturally, and how we truly under a mystery take the flesh of his body, I have spoken before, and these places of Hilary are discussed more at large in mine answer to Heskins, lib. 2. Cap. 20. & 2●. by which it may appear, that Hilary taught no corporal manner of receiving, but sub sacramento carnis communicandae, under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated, verè, sub mysterio, truly, under a mystery, and so as thereby Christ of necessity dwelleth in us and we in him. The last auctor is Gregory Nyssenus in vita Mosis. Puro defaecatóque animo coelestem cibum sumere, etc. To take the heavenly meat with a pure and clean mind. The which meat (saith he) no sowing brought forth unto us by the art of tilling the ground. But it is bread provided for us without seed, without sowing, without any other work of man, It flowing from above, is found in the earth for the bread which came down from heaven, which is the true meat, which is obscurely meant by this History of Manna, is not a thing without a body. For by what means can a thing without a body, be made meat unto the body? The thing which is not without a body, is by all means a body. Here (saith Saunder) Nyssenus proveth the truth of Christ's body, by the truth of the eating thereof, which must be really taken into our bodies, by our mouths, or else Nyssenus faileth in his whole discourse: which is a shameless manifestly. For Gregory saith expressly, we must take that heavenly meat with a pure and clean mind of taking it into our bodies, by the mouth he speaketh not. He gathereth that Christ's body is a true body, not because it is bodily eaten, but because it is meat unto our bodies, which yet as spiritual meat nourisheth spiritually, as Saunder confessed even now. How strong the argument of Nyssenus is, I force not, but he neither affirmeth, neither any thing can rightly be gathered out of him, which we do not confess and acknowledge in as ample manner as he, That Christ hath a true body, and that his flesh is heavenly meat indeed, to nourish the whole man, which must be received with a pure and clean mind, not put in at our mouths, nor swallowed down our throats.   

CAP. XVI.  
By the manner of our tarrying in Christ, it is proved, that we receive his real flesh into our bodies. 
Saunder.   
The tarrying of Christ in us, and we in him, Chry 〈…〉 
Fulke.  sostome in joan. H. 46. calleth a mingling with him: which Cyril declareth by a similitude of pouring wa●● upon melted wax, in joan. lib. 4. Ca 16 and of a little leave 〈…〉 which tempereth the whole lump of dough: so a little of the blessing draweth the whole man into itself, and filleth us with h 〈…〉 grace, and so doth Christ dwell in us, & we in him. By a little of that blessing, Cyril meaneth a small portion of the sacramental bread, or that which seemeth bread as Saunder. will have it. And by these interpretations (saith he) it cannot be avoided, but that the heavenly food which we receive into our mouths, is the real substance of Christ's flesh. For it is called benedictio, the blessing, which word is not meant of an inward virtue, coming from heaven, but of that which seemeth bread, and is visibly received. To all this I answer, first, that the terms of mingling, and similitudes of pouring wax & of leaven, must have a spiritual understanding, or else they will breed monstrous absurdities. And unto the term● blessing, I say it is taken for the external Sacrament, even as the body of Christ, the flesh of Christ, the blood of Christ. etc. by the figure synecdoche of the most principal part of the Sacrament, not in respect of that which seemeth bread, and is visibly received, but of the spiritual blessing, whereof they are partakers which receive the Sacrament worthily. Therefore saith cyril, a little blessing draweth us into it, and filleth us with his grace, and so Christ tarrieth in us and we in him. I ask how, but by his grace? For Saunder will confess, that which seemeth bread to tarry but a little while in us: likewise, that the body of Christ tarrieth no longer in us then the kinds or shows of bread and wine tarry in us: Where▪ fore the tarrying of Christ by grace in us, proveth not his real receiving of Christ's flesh into our bodies. Yea, Saunder saith himself: A little of that blessed food being received worthily of us, is not so properly said to tarry in us, as we to tari● in it, for that though it be small in form yet in virtue it is great. I pray thee Saunder, tell us what is that blessed food thou speakest of, which doth not properly tarry in us? For of his flesh, Christ saith, that it is meat in deed, & that he tarrieth in him which eateth it. And what is that which is small in form, the body of Christ, or the external sacrament, which thou callest the shows of bread and wine, which in deed are small in form? The body of Christ, I suppose thou art not so mad, to contract into smaller quantity than it is, and as for the accidents or shows of bread and wine, what virtue is in them? And in deed, that only word of cyril, A little of the blessing, meaning thereby the external Sacrament, for the internal virtue thereof, overthroweth Popish transubstantiation, & carnal manner of receiving into the mouth. For by a little of the blessing, he meaneth not a little of the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ in a little quantity, but a little of the consecrated bread and wine, which by divine and spiritual operation, is of infinite virtue to convert us into an heavenly and spiritual nature, answerable to our regeneration, which is testified unto us in baptism. But Saunder replieth, that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread, it could not be true that a little thereof should draw the whole man unto it. I answer, if it were nothing but wheaten bread, it could do no such thing: but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally, as it is a Sacrament, that is a blessing, which draweth the whole man to it, and filleth him with grace: E● ho● modo in nobis Christus manet, & nos in Christo, and by this mean doth Christ dwell in us and we in him. To the term of tarrying naturally, used by Hilary, I have answered before. Theophylact I force not of, as being a late writer, although he say nothing in effect more than Chrysostom and cyril. But Saunder still urgeth, what joining as of wax & leaven, what mingling can be made of things so far distant as heaven & earth? If you say, by faith & spirit, either you give a cause of joining (saith Saunder) which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ, or else you correct his cause and put a better. I answer, we neither add to, nor correct the cause of joining alleged by Christ, but express the very same which he doth: The words which I speak, are spirit & life, but there be some among you that believe not. Nay (saith Saunder) our tarrying in Christ is assigned to eating, and not only to believing. But we reply, that this eating is not corporal eating, but eating by faith & spirit, which may be without eating the Sacrament, and yet eating the flesh of Christ, not leaving the eating thereof (as Saunder saith) and staying upon feeding by faith alone, which is an absurd saying, for by faith we feed upon Christ through the virtue of his holy spirit.   

CAP. XVII.  
We are made one with Christ by natural participation of his 
Saunder.  flesh, as he being one nature with his father, hath assumpted our nature into his own person.  
Saunder always reasoneth so, as he maketh eating by 
Fulk.  faith and spirit, to exclude the flesh of Christ and the virtue thereof, as in this chapter, he saith, He that eateth Christ's flesh, receiveth life of him, not by the means of faith & spirit only, but also by natural participation of his flesh: as Christ liveth for the father, so he that eateth Christ shall live for him: but Christ liveth not for his father in faith, nor by mean of spirit alone, as we take spirit for devotion or spiritual gifts and qualities, but by his whole substance present in him. But when we say, that we eat Christ by faith & spirit, we mean not by spirit, devotion, or spiritual gifts, but the working of the holy spirit, as the principal efficient cause, and faith as the instrumental cause, by which we eat Christ present in whole substance. The controversy is not, whether we must be joined to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, for that we believe without all controversy, that from the beginning of the world, to the end, none can be joined to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh & drinking his blood: but whether Christ's flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament, that is the question. And therefore Saunder maketh a large & needless discourse, in this Chapter, to show how Christ liveth for his father and how we must live for him, that is by participation of his flesh and blood, which is that natural participation, whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arrians, which said, we are joined to him only in unity of will, which is not so: for he by his incarnation, is naturally joined to us, and we by participation of his flesh are naturally joined to him, so that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, of which conjunction the Sacrament is an heavenly pledge and assurance. But now cometh Saunder, and saith, that in four points the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary: first because they presuppose Christ's flesh not to be eaten of us, and consequently not to be in us, in his own nature and substance. This is a false supposell, for we affirm Christ's flesh to be eaten of all the elect of God, and whole Christ to be in them. Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ, if we do not live by eating of Christ's flesh as he by the father. This is the 2. slanderous cavil, answered before. Thirdly they are against the life of our bodies, because they say that in the Sacrament, we eat nothing into our bodies, but bread and wine, which are not able to give life to our bodies, whereby they may live for ever. This is a peevish Sophistry, we eat into our bodies, and we eat in the Sacrament bodily nothing, but bread and wine, therefore we eat not at all. Yes, we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it, with our souls which is of force to give life both to bodies and souls. Fourthly they are against the food of our bodies, which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth, we acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be food to feed the whole man, body and soul unto eternal life, but yet so to feed the body as it is not received corporally, nor feedeth corporally, but after a spiritual and divine manner. And here he maketh the Zwinglians to affirm, that the sanctified bread in the supper, is the food of our bodies, unto eternal life, as water in baptism is the instrument and mean as well to bodies & souls of everlasting life. Which is utterly false, for they affirm, neither the bread to be food, nor the water to be regeneration otherwise, then as holy signs, seals, pledges, assurances of spiritual feeding and regeneration. But Saunder by scripture, will destroy this comparison, affirming that God in deed may use what means he will, to save us, but by his word, he hath testified his will, that baptism hath his promise of salvation annexed to it, but no promise is made to material bread and wine, nor to him that eateth and drinketh them. I answer, neither is any promise made to the water in baptism, but to him that receiveth it worthily, and to him that eateth and drinketh material bread and wine in the Sacrament, the like promise is made of remission of sins and of eternal life: not in respect of the bread & wine, but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament, and by faith and working of his holy spirit feedeth us with his flesh and blood, even when that Sacrament is not received. But Cyril saith in joan, lib. 10, Cap. 13. Non poterat, etc. This corruptible nature of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life, unless the body of the natural life, were joined unto it. This is true: but the manner of the conjunction is all the matter we stand upon, which we affirm must be such, as may join every body of Gods elect that hath been & shall be, to the body of the natural life, which cannot be the Sacramental conjunction or corporal receiving of Christ's natural body into our bodies, which was denied to all the fathers before Christ's incarnation. And yet except every one of their bodies had been joined to the body of Christ, which is the body of natural life, they could not be partakers of incorruption & life, as Cyril saith. Therefore the manner of our conjunction, is not the receiving of Christ's body in at our mouths, but an heavenly & divine manner wrought by the spirit of God, apprehended by faith in all that have heard the word of God ●●d are partakers of it.   

CAP. XVIII.  
The eating of Christ's flesh was so true, that it was 〈…〉ght 
Saunder.  with the loss of many disciples.  
If Christ had not meant to give his flesh in deed (saith 
Fulke.  Saunder) he would not have cast a stumbling block in his disciples way, nor hindered their faith by words more hard than needed. I answer, he meant to give them his flesh in deed, to be eaten, not only in his supper, but even then presently, if they had been faithful to have received it. And therefore he saith to them, he that eateth me, shall live for me or by me, my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. Saunder must remember, what he hath taught us before, that Christ's flesh cannot be meat in deed, except it be eaten, but Christ saith it is meat in deed, before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament, therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirit, and he speaketh not there of Sacramental eating only. Neither doth cyril say, that only in the Sacrament, Christ's flesh is eaten, although he show that Christ instructed his Apostles, when he gave them fragmenta panis, pecces of bread, how his flesh might be eaten, in joan lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally.   

CAP. XIX.  
The right understanding of these words: It is the spirit that 
Saunder.  quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.  
Basil, Chrysostom, and Augustine, (saith Saunder) 
Fulke.  expound the name flesh for carnal and fleshly understanding of the jews: which Caluine of Luciferian pride reprocueth: And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l do chiefly follow another understanding, which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth, that Christ's flesh, should not profit any thing, but that by the spirit of his Godhead, it is made able to give everlasting life. See the rancour of Saunder, which condemneth Caluine of devilish pride, for refusing one interpretation of some fathers, & taking the exposition of others, and that, which one of the same fathers doth chiefly follow, as Saunder doth confess. But now (saith he) what need more ado? If this saying appertain not to the last supper, it maketh nothing against our belief. If it do appertain, they are words prophetical, fulfilled in the supper. I have often showed how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ, pertaineth to the supper, and how it pertaineth not. And this I prove out of this saying against your Popish opinion, wherein you hold that wicked men eat Christ's flesh. Our saviour Christ showing whence his flesh hath power to give life, namely not of itself, but of the spirit, doth also show the necessary effect of his spirit, which is never separated from his flesh. The spirit (saith he) quickeneth or giveth life: seeing therefore that no man can receive the flesh of Christ separated from his spirit, no man can receive his flesh, but he that receiveth it quickening or giving life. But where Saunder saith, that when Christ gave his body, he gave it after a spiritual sort, and no● after a fleshly manner. It might seem that he fully agreed with us in mind, as he doth in words: but when he cometh to expound spiritually and fleshly, he declareth, that he meaneth not to exclude, all fleshly manners, but only one manner of eating his body by pieces, as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner: but when he cometh to spiritual sort, he expoundeth it only by invisible sort: as though he which giveth a piece of gold closed in a paper, so that it could not be seen, did give it after a spiritual manner. As for the conversion of bread and wine into his body and blood, his presence at the table and in their mouths, and in heaven, etc. show not a spiritual manner of giving his body, but a monstrous alteration of bodily things, which are affirmed to be so really and corporally, and yet contrary to the nature of all things and bodies spoken of. I omit his ridiculous interpretations of Jeremy'S saying. Let us put wood into his bread, which he applieth to the crucifying of Christ's flesh, where yet wood was not put into his flesh, but his flesh put upon wood. But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his adversaries, which threatened to give him wood in steed of bread, that is to famish him in the stocks. Likewise of Abacuks saying: Horns are in his hands, which he meanein of the almighty power of God, often called figurative horns, Saunder referreth it to the corners of the cross, which yet were not in the hands of Christ, but his hands stretched out toward them.   

CAP. XX.  
The words of Christ being spirit and life, show, that his 〈◊〉 flesh is made present in his last supper, above all course of 〈…〉 
Saunder.  & reason.  
Saunder, as his manner is, can rest in no certain 〈…〉 sition, 
Fulk.  but will have every interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place, if it affirm any thing that 〈…〉 first, because the flesh of Christ is unprofitable, 〈…〉 the spirit which giveth it power of quickening 〈…〉 have this saying all one in effect with the woe 〈…〉ing before, it is the spirit that quickeneth. 〈…〉 upon occasion of a phrase used by Cyrillus, 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 words are of the spirit, he will have the meaning to ●e, that the words of Christ have in them some of his spirit & divine power therefore the naming of flesh & blood before, was not figurative, but proper. I grant the conclusion, but I deny the argument: for he uttered other words before, which we● figurative & unproper as, I am the bread that came, etc. yet were these words spirit & life, and so are all the words of the Gospel, that is, give h●●, if they be spiritually understood, I say not always figuratively, but always believed to be true in that sense they are uttered & meant by him, whether they be figurative or proper, as concerning the prhase. Thirdly, the words of Christ are spirit and life, because they make the spiritual body of Christ, which is a spiritual food, as Ambrose saith, de ijs qui mister, init. Cap. 9 Ambrose saith truly, that for as much as the body of Christ is a spiritual body, it is not a corporal food, but a spiritual food. Why is it not a corporal food, seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our souls? Verily, because it is not received corporally, but spiritually, which is the difference in which we stand. We agreefully with Augustine, in joan. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be understanded spiritually, & so are spirit & life to us, as they be of their own nature, howsoever unfaithful persons esteem of them, they work whatsoever it pleaseth him to signify to be wrought by them, as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We believe, as Chrysostom teacheth, Hom. 47. in joan. That they contain no natural course, but are free from all earthly necessity. And therefore, when Christ promiseth to give us his flesh to be eaten, & delivereth the bread, calling it his body, we believe his words to be spirit and life, that is not to contain any natural course, but to be free from all earthly necessity, that is, we believe unfeignedly to be fed with Christ's body and blood, although we do not eat & drink it corporally with our mouth, which is a natural course of eating, we believe, that by the flesh & blood of Christ, both our bodies & souls are nourished wonderfully unto eternal life, not thinking it necessary, that the flesh and blood of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies, as the Papists teach, for that is an earthly necessity, from which the words of Christ, are free, & yet the only thing that Saunder urgeth so vehemently, & without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the flesh and blood of Christ.  
But Saunder commandeth all heretics to cease to mock them, for making so many miracles in the Sacrament of the altar, because the words of Christ, This is my body, are spirit and life. Nay verily, this argument will stir up all men to mock the Papists more than they did before: seeing they think it lawful to feign what miracles they will in the Sacrament, because Christ's words be spirit & truth, & yet more to laugh at Sa●ders reason, which will prove these words to be most proper, & least figurative, because they partake most of the godhead, in which there is no change, whereas figures or tropes come of the Greek word, which signifieth changing. Notwithstanding this great clerk, oftentimes before hath taught us, that whatsoever is spoken of bread and meat, and eating in john 6. Chapter, until he come to this saying: (And the bread which I will give is my flesh) doth pertain to the godhead of Christ, and the participation thereof by faith: in which words he cannot deny, but bread, meat, eat, hunger, thirst, etc. must be taken figuratively. But what drunkenness is it to reason of these words only? This is my body, when all the words of Christ, as well figurative speeches, as proper, be spirit and life, as well as these. Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference between the words of the Gospel & the interpretation of false gospelers, between the old fathers & the new brethren. For Christ (saith he) was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eat his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before. The new brethren bid us feed upon him by faith alone, as Noah & Abraham did. I trust it shallbe sufficient to prove those new brethren, to be the right children & heirs of those old fathers, when they have all one matter of salvation, the flesh and blood of Christ, & all one instrument of eating, faith alone. And why should the new brethren eat the godhead, or manhood of Christ, otherwise in substance, than the old fathers did? But Saunder asketh, where is the word of God so given me after his incarnation, as it could not be given before? And I ask Saunder, wherefore it should be given now otherwise than it was before? and why it could not be given before so as it is given now? but that he will bind the word of God to a natural course, & not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessity? He demandeth further, where is any everlasting meat for his body? I demand likewise, where was any everlasting meat for the body of Noah & Abraham our fathers? But Saunder saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirit, and hath need to be fed, his body was the mean to poison his soul, therefore his soul must have a medicine, which shall be received into his body. I answer, the flesh of our old fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirit, had need to be fed, were a mean to poison the soul etc., yet needed they not, that the flesh of Christ should be received into their bodies, that it might be a medicine unto their souls: no more is it needful for the new brethren that are their children. But let us see the other differences. Irenaeus reproved them that denied the resurrection of men's bodies, because Godly men in scripture are called spiritual: the new brethren wrest the name of spirit or spiritual body, to deny the real substance of flesh in the sacrament: Nay, they infer that the manner of the eating must be spiritual, in which respect it is called a spiritual body, and not only for the power of quickening which it hath of that spirit of Christ. But it is a great mystery, that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. would have Deacons to be chosen of such men, as have the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, Saunder thinketh, he meaneth the Sacrament, which in their mass at the consecration of the blood, is called mysterium sidei, & in justinus time was delivered by the Deacons. O blockish imagination! such be the arguments of popery. But if it be so, why is not the bread so called in your Mass, as well as the cup? And if there be a special reason why the cup should rather be so called, what conscience have your Priests and Deacons to spoil the people thereof, and not to deliver it as the Deacons did in the time of justinus? The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeateth, come all to this end, that we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable; that we affirm that spirit to quicken us, without eating of Christ in his supper; we wrist to the spirit of man, that which Christ saith of the spirit of god: all which is false & slanderous, for as I have often showed. We believe it to be of necessity that we should eat & drink the flesh & blood of Christ, which by virtue of his spirit hath power to give eternal life to all them that receive it, we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and l●●e, so as no mortal man's words can be, neither did we eu●● say that flesh and blood signifieth bread and wine, and the same bread and wine must again signify the flesh and blood of Christ: although we say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seal and confirmation of that doctrine which Christ teacheth in this Chapter, concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and natural flesh and blood, which hath power to seed unto eternal life, them that eat and drink it spiritually, as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof, but by faith through the almighty working of God's holy spirit.    

The fourth Book.  
The preface of the fourth Book declareth, that he purposeth in the same to show, that the words of the institution of the supper are proper, and not figurative, and so have been taken above 1500. And that they are proper: he wili prove by circumstances of the supper, by conference of scriptures, out of the old and new Testament, & by the commandment given to the Apostles to continue the sacrament until the second coming of Christ. Last of all, he▪ craveth pardon, if he chance to say somewhat, that was touched before, affirming that his purporse is not so to do, although by affinity of the argument, desire to have the thing remembered, or by his own forgetfulness, he may be caused to fall into that default.  

CAP. I.  
That no reason ought to be heard, why the words of Christ's supper, should now be expounded unproperly or figuratively. And 
Saunder.  that the Sacramentarics can never be sure thereof.  
Christ (saith he) in his last supper, was both a testator and a law maker: a testator, in giving his body and 
Fulk.  〈…〉 oude; and a lawmaker, in commanding his apostles 〈…〉 d their successors, to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament. This testament and law was soon after writ 〈…〉 n and published. At which time, and ever since, the Church hath taken these words, This is my body, not 〈…〉 guratively, but properly. This last saying, is utterly, 〈…〉 also, neither can it be proved, by Ambrose, Chryso 〈…〉 tome, Augustine, Theodoret whom he nameth, or any before or after their time, for 600 years, that ever the visible Sacrament was adored as the very body of Christ. If he have any thing to show, we shall have it hereafter. But it is a folly (he saith) upon allegation of a thing so far beyond the memory of man, as the primitive Church is, to leave the custom of the present Church, which Christ no less redeemed, governeth, and loveth, than he did the faithful of the first six hundredth years. I answer shortly, that is not the Church of Christ, but of antichrist, which of late years hath taught, the worshipping of the sacrament, as God and man. And whereas, Saunder replieth, that then we shall have no quietness or end of controversies, if heretics may appeal to the primitive Church, as the Trinitaries in Poolande, and the Circumciders in Lithuania, for these appeal to the primitive Church, and deny writings of Fathers and scriptures, as the Protestant: I answer, the Protestants receive all the canonical scriptures, by which all heresy may be condemned, the authority or practice of the primitive Church, they allege but as a witness of truth, which is sufficient proved out of the word of God. Whereas he saith, there was but one universal change to be looked for in religion, which was to be made by Christ: I affirm, the truth of Christ's religion to be unchangeable, but there was an universal change to be looked for from Christ's religion, to Antichrist, which saint Paul calleth an Apostasy, & saint john in the Revelation, the cup of fornication, whereof all nations should drink etc. Yet was not this change so universal, but that the servants of God, though in small number and credit, with the world, were preserved out of that general apostasy, and called out of Babylon, as we see it now come to pass, by the preaching of the eternal Gospel, than also foreshowed, Apocal. 14. 17. 18. etc.  
Another reason, why we should give none ear to them, that say the words are figurative, is for that then we should doubt of our former faith, and in doubting become men that lack faith. And why should you not only doubt, but refuse a false opinion, believed contrary to the word of God? But we must tell Saunder, whether he that gave ear first to Berengarius and Zwinglius, may give ear to an other that should say the apostles had no authority to write holy Scriptures. No forsooth, for he that gave ear to Berengarius and Zwinglius, did hear them, because they brought the authority of scriptures, which is the only certain rule of truth, against which no question or doubt may be moved. As for the opinion of carnal presence, if it had been as generally received before Berengarius, as Saunder falsely affirmeth, yet it was lawful to bring it to the trial of holy Scriptures, as we do all the articles of our faith which are true, not so much because they are generally received, as for that they are manifestly approved, by the authority of the holy scriptures.  
But Saunder will yet enter farther, into the bowels of the cause, & before he hear what reasons can be brought against the popish faith, he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possibly have any ground of their doctrine, that the words of Christ in the supper are figurative, either in respect of the word written, or the faith of all Christians, or the glory of God, or the love of Christ toward us, or the profit of his Church. Yes verily, all these five respects, move us to take the words of Christ at his supper to be figurative. And, First the word written by saint Luke, and saint Paul, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: which words being manifestly figurative, have the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthew, and Saint Mark, This is my blood: and that these words have, This is my body, which are used by all four: Therefore by the written word, they are all figurative and signify the delivery of a Sacrament or seal of the new covenant established in the death and bloodshedding of the son of God.  
Secondly, the faith of all Christians, for six hundred years and more after Christ, hath been sufficiently proved to have understood the words figuratively, for a figure, sign, token, pledge of the body and blood of Christ, and not for the very substance contained in forms of bread and wine. Insomuch, that the very gloss upon the Canon Law, De cons. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est, hath these words, Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè: unde dicitur suo modo, sed non in veritate sed significant mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. Whereof it is said to be after a peculiar manner, but not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: So that the sense is, it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, it signifieth it. The author of this gloss, durst not have written thus, if it had not been an opinion generally received, that the words of Christ were not proper, but figurative.  
thirdly it is against the glory of GOD that the body of Christ, should be so made present, as it should enter not only into the mouth of wicked persons, as a dead body working no life, but also into the bellies of brute beasts, which is even horrible to name.  
Fourthly it is not agreeable to the love of Christ toward us in his second coming, that his body by such a presence should be thought to have lost all natural conditions of a substantial body, seeing the scripture putteth us in hope, that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his coming to his glorious body, Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresy of carnal presence, is contrary to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies.  
Fiftly, it is against the profit of Christ's Church, which by his ascension is drawn upward into heaven from the earth, but by this imagined presence, is moved to look down unto Christ upon the earth. Col. 3. Therefore in all these respects, the exposition of the words must be figurative.  
Another reason Saunder hath, that seeing all figures were invented either for lack of words, or for pleasantness of speaking, and Christ neither lacked words nor can be proved to have spoken figuratively, only for his pleasure, therefore he spoke not figuratively. If there be no more causes of figurative speech, than these two noted by Saunder, than Christ never used any figurative speeches, for he never wanted words, to have spoken properly that other men could speak properly, neither can he be proved to have spoken figuratively, only for his pleasure, and least of all, he affected the praise of Eloquence. But if it be out of question: & Saunder also confesseth, that in other places, Christ spoke figuratively, then is it out of question, that this argument of Saunder is not worth the paring of his nails. For there are other causes of figurative speeches, than these two by him alleged, and especially the profit of the hearers, who are more moved, and better understand often times by figurative, then by proper speeches. And for this cause, the holy ghost speaking of Sacraments, doth usually call them (figuratively, by the names of that they signify & seal unto us, as the Lamb is called the passover, baptism regeneration, the bread his body, the cup the new Testament. The profit that we take by these kind of speeches, is great, for they admonish●s to be as sure of the things, as we are of the signs, when the signs bear the name of the things signified and promised by them.  
Of Saint Augustine's rule of figurative speeches, Saunder, that loveth no repetitions, hath written a whole Chapter before, lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here, only I note that by quoting the place, he abuseth Augustine's rule, against his own example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, to prove that Christ's words are not figurative, when Augustine saith expressly, those words are figurative which Christ spoke of eating and drinking his flesh and blood.  
The rock was Christ, (he sayeth) must needs be a figurative speech, because it can not be proper. And for the same cause, say we, These words. This is my body, are figurative, for that they can not be proper. But Saunder replieth, that if he had said, this bread is my body, it might have been so thought, for bread cannot be his body no more than the rock be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not, to say, this bread, of that of which before he had said, this is my body. 1. Cor. 11. And I ask Saunder, what was that which Christ had in his hand, and whereof he said this? It could not be his body, before the words of consecration spoken as all Catholic papists affirm: than it was bread, then, the word following Is, will not suffer the sense to be, this shallbe my body, wherefore in effect it is all one to say, having bread in his hand, This is my body, and to say, This bread is my body, the one is impossible by Sanders confession: ergo by necessity of argument the other.   

CAP. II.  
That at all other, so the words of Christ's supper, aught to 
Sanden.  be taken properly, until the contrary doth evidently appear.  
By authority of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer, he laboureth to prove, that all words must be taken in 
Fulke.  their proper signification, except the contrary be manifestly shown. Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth, that all words in the Scripture, need not to be taken figuratively, and that to know which is figurative, and which is not, diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much. All this I confess, but withal I affirm, that these words: This is my body, both by diligent consideration, and ancient tradition, are found to be figurative. Neither hath Saunder any thing to the contrary. Yes I wis: the pronoun, This (saith he) pointeth not to a thing absent. No verily, for it pointeth to the bread that was in his hand. Neither the Verb, Is, can be said of that, which presently hath no true being: ergo it cannot be said of the body of Christ, which by your own divinity, hath no being in the Sacrament, before the last syllable of Hoc est corp●● meum be pronounced, than it is necessary to be said of the bread in his hand, which had a true being. And then by your own rule in the Chapter before, these words being as much, as This bread is my body, must needs be figurative, because they cannot be proper, for bread and Christ's body, be two severall-natures, that cannot stand together.   

CAP. III.  
The proper signification of these words: This is my body, 
Saunder.  and This is my blood, is, that the substance of Christ's body and blood is contained under the visible forms of bread and wine.  
If the speech were proper and not figurative, yet 
Fulke.  the substance of bread being showed, and the substance of the cup, and of that which is in the cup being showed, it would not follow, the body and blood to be under these accidents of bread and wine, but either with the substance of bread and wine, or rather that his body and blood were bread and wine. For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter, this is an Elephant, that is, the substance of an Elephant is contained under this visible form. But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible form of one substance, is called by the name of another substance. Might not Moses have said truly to the Israelites in the wilderness in the behalf of God, pointing to the Rock: This is Christ, or the body of Christ, as well as Saint Paul saith, that Rock was Christ? Therefore look what would be the sense of those words, the same will be the sense of these words, taking the speeches either as proper, or figurative.  
But Christ (saith he) hath forced us to seek out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write, This Chalice is the new Testament in my blood. For of necessity we must interpret these words, This Chalice, that is to say, the thing contained in this Chalice, is my blood. I pray you sir what necessity? except the speech be figurative. You will say it is figuratively only for the cup, to signify that which is contained therein. If you so say, then tell me once again, whether these words, The new Testament in my blood, be all one in proper speech, with these words, my blood. If the new Testament in my blood, be all one in sense, with these words my blood, they are figurative: for no man properly useth so to speak, that he nameth the new Testament in his blood, when he nameth nothing, but his blood naturally. If these words be figurative, not only in the name of cup, but in the words following, which are, is the new Testament in my blood: then the words of the supper are found to be figurative, and all the babbling about This, and Is, and body, and blood, and mine, etc. are vain and foolish: for This and Is, are in this figurative speech, and that in one manner of speaking is called, My blood, in an other, is called the new Testament in my blood, and by necessary analogy, that which in one manner of speech is uttered by these words, My body, may and ought truly to be understood and uttered in these words: The new Testament in my body crucified. That the pronoun hoc, is the Neuter gender, and hic the Masculine gender, it proveth not the alteration of substance, for the genders follow the names, and note no substantial property, where the things differ not in the sex. But where you said first, the pronoun pointeth to the visible forms, now you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantive (body) where it endeth, then to the forms, you are not only contrary to yourself, but also to the schoolmen, which say it pointeth to neither of both, but unto individuum vagum, a singular uncertain or wandering thing. But point it as you will, it can have no true literal sense, if you will hold your own principles: for if the body be not present before the words of consecration uttered, as all papists (I think) except Saunder, will affirm: That which he had in his hand was bread, at that instant, when he said, This. And Saunder himself saith: This which appeared to them bread, to be in substance at the ending of the words, His own body: Ergo it was not so before the words ended, and how can, is, a Verb of the present tense, signify that which shall be after, although it be never so soon after? But of the pronoun This, we shall have occasion to speak in three Chapters following, and diverse times it is repeated in this book, although he protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speak one thing twice.   

CAP. FOUR  
That the pronoun (this) in Christ's words, can point neither 
Saunder.  to bread nor to wine.  
I have proved before, that if it can point to nothing else, if it point to any thing, that was there 
Fulke.  present, but unto bread and wine, because body and blood, by your own principle, was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence uttered.  
But Saunder saith (this) signifieth a substance, because Christ saith not, This is in my body, but this is my body, which is a blockish reason, for Christ saith, This is the new Testament, which is an Accident, & in my blood, as well as This is my blood. Well, the Protestants opinion is (saith he) that This pointeth to the bread and the wine, which signify his body & blood. But that cannot be, because this cannot agree with bread and wine, neither in Greek nor Latin, and then telleth us, the genders of the nouns, etc. But good Sir: the pronoun This, is the neuter gender, put absolutely, comprehending in signification that thing, which was showed, which needed not to be called bread and wine, because it was so to be judged by the bodily senses. But then (saith Saunder) you correct the words of Christ, as though he had said, This which is bread, is my body, and then every substance of bread should signify his body. He that giveth the true meaning of Christ's words, doth not correct them, neither do we refer the pronoun This, to the general substance of bread, but affirm, that it demonstrateth that bread only, which he at that time took for to make thereof a Sacrament. And whereas it is translated in Latin: Hic est sanguis, the Greek retaineth the Neuter gender. And an adjective between two Substantives of diverse genders, may agree with either of them, but that the pronoun This, is to be referred to the wine, the other Evangelists do show, which utter it thus, this cup, that is, the wine in this cup. And whereas Cyprian sayeth, haec est caro mea, he might aswell have said, pointing to bread, hoc est caro mea, or hic panis est caro mea, and yet his words, as he uttereth them, have none other meaning, even as Moses speaking of the rainbow in the person of GOD, saith, Hoc est signum foederis, etc. This is the sign of the covenant, where hoc agreeing in gender, with signum, doth yet demonstrate the rainbow, which is there a Noun of the Masculine gender.  
Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna, Exodus 16. saith: Iste est panis, quem dominus etc. This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat. In the Latin, the pronoun This, agreeth with panis, which is the Masculine gender, yet doth it demonstrate, Man, which is the Neuter. Therefore this grammatical discourse, of genders of nouns, adjectives and their Substantives, serveth to no purpose, to prove that bread and wine were not pointed in the words of Christ by the pronoun This.   

CAP. V.  
That the pronoun (This) cannot point to any certain acts, 
Saunder.  which is a doing about the bread and wine.  
The pronoun (saith he) is of the singular number, and therefore it cannot signify many things, done about the bread, as taking, breaking, blessing, etc. and seeing it can point but one thing, it can point no one act certainly. To this ridiculous argument, I answer, that the pronoun (this) doth demonstrate that bread, with all actions, and accidents belonging to it, so that the sense is: This bread thus taken, blessed, broken, given, eaten, is my body, that is (as Tertullian, and Augustine say) a figure or sign of my body, even as the Lamb is said to be the passover, but not a Lamb nakedly considered, but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging: such a Lamb, so taken, killed, the blood so sprinkled, the body ●osted, eaten, standing with staves in their hands etc., this is the passover, that is, a Sacrament of the passover. You see that the pronoun being the singular number, may demonstrate a singular substance, but with all actions belonging to it.   

CAP. VI  
That the pronoun This, pointeth finally to the body & b●●●d 
Saunder.  and particularly signifieth inchristes' supper one certain kind of food.  
He taketh for proved, that which is proved to be untrue, 
Fulk.  that the pronoun This, pointeth not the bread & wine, and thereof concludeth, that it pointeth only the body and blood: but the first is false, ergo, the later. But if you be so hasty, saith Saunder, that you will not tarry the speaking of four words, to know what particular and final substance the Pronown This, doth point unto, than this doth mean, this eatable thing. Sir, our haste is not so great, but we can stay a much longer time to know our master's meaning: But seeing you bear us in hand, that one substance is made of another, by these words spoken, which ask a time in speaking, and you yourselves determine at what instant the change is suddenly made all at once, and would prove the same by the pronoun This, and every other of the words, you must give us leave to consider every moment of time, in which they are spoken. For then every word is true, when the things whereof the words are signs, agree with the word, in that time in which they are uttered: for this proposition, every man is dead, cannot be true, because every man shall die, before every man be dead. And to that you say, This, meaneth this eatable thing, I affirm, you are never the near: for, if there be not bread, what thing is there eatable before it be the body● and the body it is not, before the words are all uttered. If by an eatable thing, you mean Duns his individuum vagum, than you renounce your former position, so often advouched, that the pronoun This pointeth to a certain substance, and so you are rapped on the sco●se on both sides, and with your own staves.   

CAP. VII.  
The naming of the chalice proveth not the rest of Christ's 
Sande  words to be figurative.  
He were a mad man that would reason so: that because 
Fulke.  one word is figurative, all the rest must be figurative: but this is a good argument: one word is figurative, ergo more may be, and figurative speeches are net inconvenient to be used in the institution of a Sacrament. Therefore Saunder might have spared his seven reasons, which he bringeth to prove, that the naming of the chalis proveth not all the rest of the words to be figurative. But the naming of the chalis, the new Testament in his blood, doth invincibly prove, all the other speeches to be figurative. For the same sense is of these words: This is my blood: and of these, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: but the sense of these latter words is figurative, not only in respect of the word chalis, but of the new Testament in his blood: ergo the sense of the former words is figurative. And whereas Saunder saith the Apostles could not conjecture, that est, was put for significat, which few but great doctors can discern, token of things, to be sometime called by the names of things themselves: I say he doth the Apostles wrong, who being brought up in the daily exercise of the Sacraments of the law, could not be ignorant, that the Lamb was called the passover, whereof it was a token, and circumcision the covenant of God, whereof it was a seal, and so of many other: but these two were their principal Sacraments, unto which with us, baptism and the lords supper doth answer.   

CAP. VIII.  
That the words of Christ's supper be proper, though many other be figurative and unproper. 
Saunder.   
Why these words of our saviour, This is my body, be not like other of his sayings, in which he is said to be 
Fulk.  the door, the way, the true vine: john Bapt. to be Elias: or the rock, to be Christ, he promiseth to declare in the last Chapter, which is specially entitled against Master Nowel's challenge, and by him thoroughly confuted. The universal consent, that he boasteth of, in discerning of figurative speeches, can never be proved, to have received the words of Christ for proper. Two reasons yet he allegeth, why none of those propositions, doth so much as seem to sound, like the words of the supper. One, for that they name two several natures as john baptist and Elias. That is false, for not naming john Baptist, Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is Helias. The other, they speak not of any certain thing, or else they point not to it as to a thing present. This is likewise false, for Helias was a certain thing, and he that was pointed unto, by the Pron●une, This, was present. Last of all, where he challengeth us to show, where that Proposition is figurative, which first suiteth and maketh any thing, I have showed before, that the propositions, which God useth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal, are figurative. For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh, he saith to Abraham, this is my covenant, Gen. 17. And of the Lamb to be slain and used as he appointeth, he saith, you shall eat it in haste, for it is the passover of the Lord. These are words of institution, yet are they figurative, for circumcision was not the covenant, nor the Lamb the passover, but figuratively seals, signs, and tokens of them.   

CAP. IX.  
It is showed by 27 circumstances of Christ's supper, that he 
Saunder.  made his real flesh and blood present, under the forms of bread and wine, and consequently, that his words are proper. The first circumstance of Christ's last supper, is to consider who made it.  
How necessary the consideration of the circumstances of every place of Scripture is, for the true understanding 
Fulke.  thereof, every wise man will acknowledge, but no circumstance alone, nor all the circumstances together, do prove these words of Christ to be proper and not figurative. As first we acknowledge the maker of the supper to be almighty, to do whatsoever it pleased him, but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh, promiseth his flesh, and giveth his flesh, all which we constantly believe: yet it followeth not, that he purposed to give his flesh in the Sacrament, after his incarnation, otherwise than he gave it to the Patriarches, before his incarnation. Acknowledging also the providence, wisdom, truth, and goodness of the speaker, we affirm, that he speaketh here most wisely, providently, truly, and well, but yet figuratively, without that he doth blind his spouse with figurative words (as Saunder saith) which he doth no more, than God blinded his spouse, the Church of Israel, with figurative words; when he spoke figuratively in the institution of the Sacraments of circumcision, and of the paschal lamb.  
The second circumstance may be to consider the time when 
Saunder.  the supper was made.  
The consideration of the time, which was the night 
Fulke.  before he suffered, forbade him not, to use figurative speech sufficiently to be understood, by the usual phrase of the scripture, speaking of Sacraments. And therefore he said, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: neither is he to be burdened, with the misunderstanding of heretics, which upon colour of his words, imagine a presence, that can not stand with the truth of his body, like unto our bodies, contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3.  
The third circumstance concerning the persons who were a● 
Saunder.  the last supper.  
The Apostles that were present, have sufficiently in their writings testified those words to be figurative, 
Fulke.  although they have not expressedly said, they are figurative. S. Matthew calling that which Christ drank and gave to be drunk, the fruit of that vine, which is not blood but wine, S. Paul. calling it bread, which is broken, etc. and the cup the new Testament in his blood, beside many other arguments of the nature of Christ's humanity, like unto ours in all substantial points, which must of necessity enforce a figurative speech. And whereas Saunder saith, that parables are spoken, so that men hearing do not understand: ergo Christ spoke not in parables to his Apostles, to whom the mysteries of the kingdom were known. The argument is nought. For although parables are to blind the reprobat, yet are they to give understanding to the elect, and therefore Christ spoke many things in parables, which are for better edifying of the Church then if they had been spoken plainly & without all parable. Thirdly the Apostles, which tarried at Caparnaun, by his doctrine there delivered, had learned how to eat the body of Christ & to drink his blood, not as Saunder saith, really under the forms of bread and wine, but spiritually, by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric.  
The 4. circumstance, concerning the ending of the old passover, and the making of a new. 
Saunder.   
The ending of the old passover, which was a sign, 
Fulke.  doth no more hinder the institution of a new sign, which is not corporally, that which it signifieth, no more than the ending of circumcision, hindereth the ordaining of baptism, which is not actually that, which it representeth. That Saunder denieth Moses & Phinees to have eaten the flesh of Christ, because the law brought nothing to perfection, it is a slender reason: for Moses and Phinees did not eat the flesh of Christ, by virtue of the law, but by promise of the Gospel, by force whereof, Christ was the same matter of salvation to them that he is to us. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diversa, in re quae significatur paria, diverse in signs, equal in the thing that is signified. In joan Tr. 26.  
The fifth circumstance, concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper. 
Saunder.   
The preface he speaketh of, are these words of Christ: I have desired with desire to eat this passover with 
Fulk.  you, before I die. Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lamb, or to the new. If they be referred to the new, Christ desireth only to eat his own body with his Apostles, as Chrysostom sayeth, to encourage them not to be afraid thereof, which he could not do by faith only, therefore he did it really, wherein is none absurdity to eat it, Angels feed of it, seeing other men have eaten their own flesh in a gross manner, either for hunger, or for anger, or fancy, etc. To this I answer: first if a liar could always remember himself, it should skill to Sanders purpose, that these words should not be referred to the new Sacrament, for then Christ in calling it, this paschal lamb, or passover, should begin to speak figuratively.  
Secondly, I marvel, why he saith, it is a thing clean impossible, that Christ should eat it by faith. How did he at other times eat the Paschal lamb? did he not eat it with faith? how was he baptised? did he not also believe? Although Christ partaking the Sacraments instituted for sinful men, had a singular manner of partaking, which no man else had, that is for the profit of other, & not himself, who needed them not, yet there is no doubt, but bearing our person, he did partake them with faith. For, of whom is it said? he trusted in God, etc. Psa. 22. And to that which Saunder sayeth, he did eat of it, as Angels feed of it, (which cannot be corporally, but spiritually:) I agree with him, that it is no absurdity, so he will grant me two things: the one, that he did none otherwise eat his body in the supper, than he was borne again in baptism. The other, that it will suffice him, that we so eat the body of Christ, as Angels feed of it, which are thereby nourished and established in eternal life, and yet cannot receive his body corporally into their spirits. As for the argument taken of other men, eating their own flesh, for hunger, anger, or fancy, to prove that it is no absurdity for Christ to eat his own flesh corporally, is very absurd. For a●●eit, some men have eaten their flesh for hunger, ange●, or fancy, yet was it an absurdity for them so to do. Then of an argument, which is Consentaneum, to conclude negatively, it may be called absurdum absurdorum. Again, if it had been none absurdity for men to eat their own flesh, for hunger, anger, or fancy, yet no man did ever eat his whole body: and therefore the absurdity of Christ eating his own body after that manner, is not by their example avoided.  
But if the desire of Christ (saith he) be referred to the old Paschal Lamb, yet was it in respect, that at the ending thereof, the new might be instituted, which Chrysostom calleth the truth, that was performed when the figure was past, in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth the truth, which is his own substance, which is the only meat, wherein God taketh pleasure. To this I answer, a desire is, of that which is absent, Christ's substance of his flesh was never absent, since his incarnation: therefore it was not that which he desired, but another truth of the old figures, namely, the sacrifice of his death, of which the Apostle sayeth: Christ our passover is slain & offered up. 1. Cor. 5. Again, where he saith, his own substance united to his godhead, is the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure, he speaketh contrary to Christ, which saith, My meat is to do the will of my father, and finish his work, which was brought to pass in his suffering, which also he nameth expressly in the words of the preface. It was the last passover, that he did eat, before his suffering, so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence.  
The sixth circumstance concerning the love which moved Christ to institute this Sacrament. 
Saunder.   
Even the same love moved him, which moved him 
Fulke.  to institute the Sacrament of regeneration, neither in promising to give his body, did he speak more, than he did perform. For he gave his body in deed, and daily giveth it to be received spiritually, under the sacrament of bread and wine. But that he should give it by conversion of the elements into his body and blood, love could not move him to give it otherwise, than as it might be most profitable for us; and most honourable for him, & that was to give it, spiritually to be received.  
The seventh circumstance of washing the Apostles feet. 
Saunder.   
Because Christ washed his Apostles feet, the custom of the Church (saith he) hath been, that all catholic Bishops and pri●si● 
Fulke.  have used before they came to consecrate, to wash the very tops of their fingers, not to handle bread and wine, for then Christ might have washed his disciples hands before they had eaten the paschal Lamb, at the eating whereof was bread and wine, but clean consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread & wine, but the other must have also the bodies purified, for the more worthy receiving thereof. This is new divinitiea, and new Logic also Christ washed his Apostles feet, therefore Bishops & Priests use to wash the tops of their fingers before they consecrate, when it were more reason they should wash the people's feet, who by his saying, must have their bodies also purified for the more worthy receiving This is a poor circumstance, to prove that Christ's words are not figurative.  
The eight circumstance, concerning the place of the last supper. 
Saunder.   
If the house in which Christ kept his passover, had 
Fulk.  been material, some of the Evangelists would have noted that it stood in Zion, as well as Nicephorus & Damascen, who could hardly know the place, seeing jerusalem was utterly destroyed long before their time, & another city built, not standing in place of the old jerusalem. That a great & unaccustomed matter was done in the house, so found by miracle, we confess, but that proveth not that Christ's speech was proper, because it was not abroad in the temple or synagogue, but in a close parlour. But where Saunder saith, Christ gave to every one of his Apostles a loaf, under the form whereof, his own substance was contained, it is against the scripture, which saith, he broke the bread, he gave them, against Cyrillus, which saith he gave them pieces of bread, against reason, that every one should eat a loaf of bread, although they were but small, when they had supped twice before in that evening, at the paschal Lamb, & at an ordinary supper. But if the table be real (saith Saunder) much more the meat is real. We deny not, but the meat is real: that is real bread & wine to the body, and the body and blood of Christ to be received of the soul: for, if all things be real, why should not the bread and wine be real?  
The ninth circumstance of the taking bread & wine. 
Saunder.   
Christ took bread & wine, who never touched the thing which 
Fulke.  he did not sanctify. Yes, he touched judas lips with his lips, yet did he not sanctify them. But he sanctified the bread & wine to the use of his supper. Neither went the virtue from him (as Saunder saith) by touching of his garments, but by faith, for many at the same time, did not only touch him, but thrust & throng him, yet they all received not virtue from him. Secondly, he took unleavened bread, which was already figurative bread: therefore he goeth not about to do that was done already, to make it figurative bread. I answer, the paschal Lamb was eaten, and therefore the bread was common bread, although unleavened, which was to be eaten seven days after. But what letteth, if it once figured one thing, but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing? for Saint Paul showeth that it figured sincerity and truth: now it is a seal of the remission of fins, by the death of Christ.  
Thirdly, Christ taking bread and wine, pointeth not to his Apostles, as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts, (as Caluine dreameth) but in bread and wine, we must seek the first work of his supper. And therefore, Saunder dreameth, that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles breasts. He begun with taking bread and wine, ergo he did work nothing in the Apostles breasts. A sound reason, I promise you.  
Last of all, this putteth us in mind of that great Priest Melchisedek, as Cyprian teacheth. But the Apostle writing to the hebrews, could have taught us more certainly, if he could have seen any such comparison between Christ and Melchizedeck. Heb. 7. And every sacrifice (saith he) is changed in substance from the former nature it had, sometime killed, sometime burned, sometime eaten: therefore Christ must change the bread & wine into his body and blood. If we should admit a sacrifice (as most of the old writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thanksgiving) verily the change by eating and drinking, were sufficient to make it answer to the change required in a sacrifice, without transubstantiation, which was not used in any sacrifice.  
The tenth circumstance of blessing. 
Saunder.   
First, when Christ blesseth, it is not necessary, that he should make any outward token of lifting up his eyes or 
Fulk.  hands, and least of all, with making the sign of the cross, as Saunder dreameth waking. And although, when he bless, he speak, by the way of doing or bestowing some real benefit, it followeth not, but that his speech may be figurative, which is not always imperfect, as Saunder saith, but being well used, is better than common speech. Although what blessing meaneth in this place, the other Evangelists do declare, which call his blessing, thanksgiving. And yet I deny not, but Christ blessed the bread and wine, which he sanctified, to be a divine sacrament of his body and blood, for the assurance of remission of sins, by the new testament, which is established in his blood.  
The eleventh circumstance of giving thanks.  
The best thanks (saith he) are those, that are given in 
Saunder.  word and deed: therefore Christ gave not thanks figuratively, 
Fulke.  neither be the words of thanksgiving figurative, as the Sacramentaries say: The words in which Christ gave thanks, are not expressed, & therefore the Sacramentaries say not that they are either figurative or proper. But Saunder would have these words, This is my body, to be the words of thanksgiving, because Irenaeus saith, Panem, in quo gratiae act●e sunt, corpus esse domini, that the bread, in which thanks is given, is the body of our Lord: as though thanks could not be given, but by those words only, which are not words of thanksgiving to God, but of declaring to men, how to esteem that which Christ giveth, namely as a true pledge of his body and blood: as if one delivering the broad seal to a condemned man, say, this is a pardon for you. That Christ gave thanks to God both in word and deed, not only at this time, but at all times, there is no question: for in all things he was obedient to his father, even to the most cursed and shameful death of the Cross: neither was it necessary, that he should make transubstantiation, so often as he gave thanks in word and deed. Neither are those our ancestors, which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thanksgiving, of whom Ignantius spoke: for we both receive it, and believe it to be the flesh and blood of Christ, in such sense as he meant it, and as Ignatius took his meaning.  
The twelfth circumstance of breaking. 
Saunder.   
First Saunder findeth fault with the order of words 
Fulke.  used by all the Evangelists, in placing breaking, before the words of consecration, because Saint Paul sayeth the bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ: which is no good argument: for Saint Paul thereby showeth, that the bread is not altered from his substance, although it be used for a Sacrament of our spiritual communication of Christ with us, and of us one with another. 1. Cor. 10. But he will salve the matter, by saying, the Evangelists first join all the deeds of Christ together, and then express his words.  
The deeds, he saith, are taking bread, blessing, thanksgiving, delivering: mark that here he maketh blessing, & thanks giving to be only deeds, which immediately before he affirmed to be by saying, This is my body. But howsoever our adversaries are pleased with all (saith he) let it go for a truth, that Christ did break, and give, after the words of consecration. Thus when he hath nothing to prove it, a stark lie must go for a truth, contrary to the order observed by all the Evangelists, because that order is contrary to Popery, and the Popish custom, which first consecrateth, and then breaketh. But taking it for a truth: the breaking of that which appeared bread, doth show Christ to be wholly contained in every piece thereof, whereas Christ eaten only by faith, is received according to the measure of every man's faith, which is more or less, contrary to the figure of Manna. I answer, whole Christ is received by every one, that receiveth the bread and wine in what quantity soever, although Christ bestow not his graces equally. For Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith: ergo he is wholly present by faith, Eph. 3.  
And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Saunder cited advers. jovin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna. Et not etc. And we also take the body of Christ equally. There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and servant, etc. although according to the merits of the receivers, that is made divers, which is one. By merits, Hierom meaneth not works, but worthiness of faith, by which the grace of God is effectual unto good works, in some more than in other. Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrary to this meaning, Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus etc. This body when the priest ministereth, is as great in the small piece, as in the whole loaf. Of this bread when part is taken, every man hath no less, than altogether: one hath all: twain hath all: more have all, without diminishing.  
These words (saith Saunder) cannot be understanded of material bread, nor of inward grace, neither of which are equally received. But yet Christ and a seal of this redemption is equally received, without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of bread and a whole loaf, as Saunder himself translateth, bread is not the name of accidents, neither was there ever heard of a loaf of accidents of bread: nor of breaking of accidents of bread, before the Laterane Council. But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople? Post elevationem, etc. after the elevation, by & by, a partition of the divine lody of is made. But truly although he be divided into parts, yet he is acknowledged and found undivided, uncutt, and whole in every part of the things, that are cut. Where he saith, the divine body is parted, he meaneth the bread, which is called his body, for the Greeks to this day, do not acknowledge transubstantiation. Although the authority of Germanus be not worth the standing upon, being but a late writer of a corrupt time.  
But what speak I of fathers, saith Saunder? The bread which we break, is it not the communicating of our lords body? Because we being many, are one bread, one body. For so much as we all partake of the one bread. If the bread be broken, (saith he) how partake we all of one bread? that which is broken, is not one in number. No sir, but it was one in number before it was broken, whereof when every one received a part, we understand that we all pertain to one whole. But the Corinthians (saith he) have more than one loaf broken among them. How prove you that, sir? the words of Paul seem otherwise, and if they had twenty loaves, yet was it all one bread in kind, whereof the Apostle said, we all partake of one bread: which if it be not material bread, how is it broken? for the body of Christ is not broken. And Saint Paul, saying we partake all of one bread, which is broken, meaneth not that the visible Sacrament, is nothing else but many accidents, and no bread at all.  
The thirteenth circumstance of giving. 
Saunder.   
Saunder will have the words of consecration to go before the delivery of the bread, contrary to the order of 
Fulke.  all the Evangelists: for else Christ should not give a sacrament, and he promised to give his flesh, etc. I answer, he gave a Sacrament, and his flesh at his supper, although the Sacrament were not perfect in every singular action that belonged to it, but in the whole. Where he sayeth, the meat of Christ's supper came from his hands, and that it is horrible blasphemy, to say it came another way, because he only sayeth it, it shall suffice plainly to deny it. He gave bread and wine from his hands, but he gave his flesh and blood, from his eternal spirit, which giveth life unto his flesh, and the working of the holy ghost, the third person in Trinity, maketh it to be effectual, which God the father by his son jesus Christ, giveth us in his supper.  
Now he allegeth Saint matthew, Saint Mark, Saint Luke, and Saint Paul, which say, he did give with his hands, and seeing in Saint john he had promised to give his flesh to be eaten, what other performance of his promise is there, than this gift by his hand? and here he asketh what other Gospel we can bring forth, wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made? and here he craveth pardon to cry out upon false preachers; Ye cruel murderers of Christian souls, where is that meat given, but at Christ's table, & c? Thou false hypocrite and errant traitor, & murderer both of Christian bodies and souls, we have no Gospel, but the Gospel of Christ, written by his Apostles and Evangelists. But thou contrary to the order of all the four witnesses, which thou namest, thou, I say, defendest the giving to be after the saying. And whereas they all say, he gave that he took, and he took the substance of bread, thou deniest that he gave the substance of bread.  
Thirdly, where Christ sayeth, The bread which he will give, is his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world, which was on the cross, thou affirmest, that he giveth it only at his supper. And last of all, whereas he gave presently, which then presently was eaten, when he said, he that eateth me etc. thou restrainest his gift only to his supper, wherein, although he gave that before he promised, yet he gave it not only there, nor first there, nor there with his hands, but with his spirit joining with his hands, that gave the external signs. For of giving by hands only, without his spirit, it may be truly said, The flesh profiteth nothing, joh. 6. And therefore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christ's body on the cross, saith, he offered himself by his eternal spirit. Heb. 9  
The fourteenth circumstance of saying. 
Saunder.   
Words are used for profit, and for necessity, therefore the words of God are greatly to be regarded, and 
Fulk.  especially, the words concerning the sacrament, which is an hidden mystery, and therefore hath need to be declared by words: but the Sacramentaries looking to Christ's deeds, as taking bread, etc. trust not his words, saying, This is my body, testified by four of his disciples. Yes master Saunder, those whom you call Sacramentaries, trust them better, & more certainly believe them to be true, in that sense which Christ did speak them, than you popish transubstantiators do in your popish error, which to make yourselves godmakers, of arrogancy and covetousness, you defend among the ignorant. But deeds, except they be expounded by words (saith he) may have many interpretations: And the deeds of the last supper, seem to him to be undoubted parables, which the words expound, and therefore be no parables: for mere figurative words expound nothing. Who is so mad to grant to Sanders see●ings, that the deeds of Christ in taking bread, blessing, thanksgiving, breaking, giving, are parables? but admit they were parables, why may not mere figurative words, expound parables? Christ himself expoundeth the parable of the tars, Matth. 13. altogether by worde● as mere figurative, as these of the supper. He that soweth good seed, is the son of man, the field is the world: The good seed are the children of the kingdom: the tars are the children of the wicked. The enemy is the devil, The harvest is the end of the world, The ●●●pers are the Angels. And yet it is so strange a matter to Saunder, that a mere figurative speech should expound a parable, who thinketh and saith, that this reason alone ought to persuade any man.  
But he will bring a greater reason: the words of the supper, give substance to the deeds, for no Sacrament can be made without words, ordained of God.  
If I should urge this rule against five of your Sacraments. I might easily prove them to be no Sacraments, because they have not words ordained of God to give substance of Sacraments to the external deeds. Well, the word of Sacrament (saith he) must be common and known, therefore not figurative. I have showed often before, that Circumcision, and the paschal Lamb were instituted by such figurative speeches, as these words, This is my body, This is my covenant. This is the passover, baptism is regeneration, etc.  
The fifteenth circumstance of take. 
Saunder.   
Christ bade all the twelve take: ergo (saith he) he had judas to take that which he called his body, which was either bare bread 
Fulke.  a figure of Christ, or his body under the forms of bread. For an ●ff●ctuall sign no man corporally took, because judas rock that the rest took▪ and a bare sign, Christ was not sent to give, n●r only spiritual gifts, which were given to the old patriarches, who took his manhood to leave us corporal means and 〈◊〉 of grace, which might work upon our souls, etc. I have proved before, that judas was not present ●t the supper, but 〈…〉 b●●n p●es●●● (as sometime there are as 〈◊〉 as he) yet ●othing is gained by t 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 Christ gave bread a●● 〈…〉 of his body and blood crucified and shed for remission of our sins. And what inconvenience is it, if one as ill as judas receive this effectual sign, which hath none effect in him, because he rejecteth and contemneth it? Is not the Queen's broad ●eale an effectual sign of her pleasure, which a traitor may receive into his hands, contemptuously, and break in pieces maliciously? But Augustine sayeth, Ep. 162. Our Lord suffereth judas to receive among the innocent disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. Against Augustine, who sayeth he was present, I oppose Hilarius, which sayeth he was absent, in Math. Can 30.  
Against Sanders exposition of these words, our price to be nothing else, but the body of Christ, and not only a Sacrament thereof, I oppose Augustine himself to expound his own meaning, who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles, and of judas, Illi manducabunt panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra Dominum. In Fuan. joan. Tract. 59 They did eat the bread which was our Lord, he did eat the bread of our Lord against our Lord.  
The sixteenth circumstance of eating. 
Saunder.   
Christ sayeth, eat ye once only, meaning that they should eat bodily, that he gave them, and eat it also spiritually. 
Fulke.  This I allow, for under the sign of bodily eating, ●e willed them to be assured of spiritual participation of his flesh and blood and all benefits of his passion. But this will not satisfy Saunder, but seeing he saith, eat ye, but once, he would have them to eat bodily the same substance, which they should eat spiritually, which is no good argument. And therefore he is shamefully graveled when he saith, the verb eat, by this mean, standeth not unproperly (for he can abide no figures) because eating, belongeth naturally, both to the soul & the body, which would make any Philosopher blush to hear, but the reason more: because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soul, and the mean principally to the body, which hath instruments to eat; for a dead body can not eat, nor a soul without a body can eat properly. What say you Saunder? is the soul the principal cause of eating, and the body the instrumental cause? By this means the soul goeth, rideth, lieth, speaketh, leapeth, danceth, and all whatsoever a dead man can not do. Well, grant then this speculation: what then? what other spiritual eating can be meant by this word eat ye, then by any other eating, for every man eateth whatsoever he eateth, by this reason spiritually and bodily. Wherefore in spite of your nos●, if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually, as Christians use to speak, and not according to your physical argument, either he commanded it by an other word, or else this word is unproper. For to eat by faith, is to eat unproperly, and not to eat physically, as all other meats are eaten.  
The seventeenth circumstance of these words, This is my body. 
Saunder.   
He will speak of these words, but as of a circumstance, if the ●●●be Is, import no more but a bare sign, 
Fulke.  Christ is greatly promoted, to give thanks for leaving a bare sign. I answer, Christ gave not a bare sign, but his body to be spiritually received, with a seal and an effectual sign, but every figure and token (saith he) which d 〈…〉 th' in substance from his truth, is always bare and naked in respect of the truth it representeth: M 〈…〉 ●●we the d●gge barketh against the dignity of baptism, and all the Sacrament of the old time, and cavilleth foolishly, by disjoining of things to be conjoy 〈…〉 d. But Chri●● (saith he) having a body, presented not bread and wi●e, as figur●s of his body and blood in 〈…〉 e to 〈◊〉 ●●ther, and gave thanks for them. This is a p●lting 〈…〉 ion of that in question, for we deny the Sacrifice pretended: yet Christ at other times, gave thanks for bodily meat, much more now for spiritual food of the soul, as the Sacrament is, being worthily received.  
As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in bread and wine, we find none that he offered to God, but a refreshing to Abraham, whom in deed he blessed as the Priest of God, and so hath Christ blessed us with eternal happiness. Therefore all this babbling of Saunder, that Christ offered bread and wine, to his father, which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fat Ox, and give him in a paper written, this is a fat Ox, etc. is not worth one Goats hear. Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatory, and that but once, shedding his blood, the great mystery of which redemption, he delivered to his Apostles in the outward creatures of bread and wine. But let us see, how he proveth, that these words are not figurative.  
First Ambrose saith: In the divine consecration, the self words of our Lord and Saviour do work, and Chrysostom saith, that by this word, This is my body, the things set forth, are consecrated. but figurative words work nothing, therefore they are not figurative. This minor is a stark lie often times confuted: These words in the very institution of the supper, are figurative, This is the new Testament in my blood, and yet work as much as these, This is my body. Likewise the words of Christ, are spirit and life, therefore not figurative, is a beastly argument, unworthy answering, which would deny all figurative speeches to be the words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is, that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum, we leave never a one in his own signification, plucking them from their gender and case, when we expound it thus: This doth signify my body, which is a toy to mock with an Ape. For who can expound a sentence in other words to keep the same case, and gender, and kind of words always?  
But it is a weighty matter, that Saunder hath observed in Saint Paul's order of words, placing the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 next to the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, uttering the words after this manner. This of me is the body: whereas the other Evangelists say, This is the body of me. Verily, there is not here so much odds, as between a mill-horse, and an horsemill. But what is the great mystery, that lieth in this observation? forsooth it giveth conjecture (such as in the order of words may be had) that the pronoun This, only resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Body, and cannot be referred unto Bread. For it were an hard speech to say: this bread of me is the sign of body. But if I say, this bread doth signify of me the body, what other sense hath it, then if I say, this bread doth signify the body of me? I blame not Saunder for scanning narrowly whatsoever is uttered in the scripture: but in urging the composition of the Greek speech, which is not like the English tongue, where there is no difference in sense, seeing the Latin composition w●l well admit that which soundeth hardly in the English speech, Hic panis mei signum est corporis.  
The eighteenth circumstance of these words, which 
Saunder.  is given for you.  
Saunder playeth the fool out of measure, to urge the 
Fulke.  accidents of grammar in a figurative speech. Saint Luke sayeth, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur. If you take corpus figuratively (saith he) than the sense must be, Haec est figura corporis mei, quae pro vobis datur: This is the figure of my body, which figure is given for you, and so not his true body, but a figure thereof was given for us. Saunder thinketh he hath to do with young lads, that learn their accidents of grammar, which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections. But what if we expound it thus, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis mei (as Tertullian doth) and retaining the gender of the Relative, say, quod pro vobis datur, This is a figure of my body, which body is given for you?  
Saunder hath his answer ready, that the relative must repeat his whole antecedent, which cannot have at once both a proper and unproper meaning. What could Priscian, or Aristarchus have uttered more learnedly?  
But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me & vos &c. This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you: etc. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti, the sign or seal of the covenant, as it must needs be, for circumcision, whereof he speaketh, was not the covenant, how doth the relative repeat the whole antecedent? how hath one word a proper and unproper understanding? Again Exodus 12, Haec est religio phase, Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo. This is the religion of the passover, No stranger shall eat of it. Hear co is a relative agreeing in the neuter gender, with phase his antecedent, and yet phase the passover, signifieth a Lamb, which was the sign of the passover. Again when it is said, Hoc est postr●mum pascha quod comedit jesus cum discipulis: This is the last▪ passover that jesus did eat, with his disciples: hath not quoth the same relation which it hath in these words quod pro vobis datur? But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar, what if the figure be laid in the verb est, after this manner, Hoc est, id est, significat corpus ●●um quod pro vobis datur, this signifieth my body which is given for you? Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents, and relatives? But he hath found another mystery in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which must needs be referred to corpus, and cannot be referred to figura corporis. And here he obtesteth, that he may be instructed, wherein he doth misconstrue the words. I have already satisfied his request, and further I say, he doth without all Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Philosophy, and Divinity, refer hoc to corpus, which is to be referred to that thing which he had in his hand, which by their own Popish divinity could be nothing but bread before he had spoken out the words of consecration.  
As for him that will lay the figure in the Verb 〈◊〉, to take it for significat, Saunder counteth him an ignorant man, because it must be resolved by est significant, and then the reason of signifying shall be found in the noun (body) rather then in the verb (Is:) for which cause Occolampadius admitted either the one or the other that is est, for significat, or copus, for signum corporis. In deed the matter is not great, for the sense, but when you call us to construing the words by Grammar: But taking the proposition thus: Hoc est significans corpus meum, I say the reason of signifying consisteth not in the word body, but in the subject of the proposition, which is the sign of the body, although significans follow the Verb est: For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread, the passion signified pertaineth to the body. Where Saunder challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendom to find another construction, I appeal to all the Grammarians in the world, whether these words, Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur, may not be construed grammatically, as well as these other examples out of Genesis, Exodus, and a thousand more of like, that might be added.  
The 19 circumstance of the Verb facere, to do, or make, or to offer sacrifice. 
Saunder.   
The Verb facere, which signifieth most generally making and doing, he will have now to signify, offering 
Fulke.  sacrifice, because that is the most excellent deed, that can be made, which is a mad reason, if Christ, which doth always the best things, should be said to offer sacrifice so often as he said facere. For every thing that he did, was the best, in all respects, that he did it. But to prove that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice, he quoteth two places of Scripture, but rehearseth neither of both for shame: the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites, ego faciam bovem alterum: Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice, but to prepare or dress, or make ready an ox; or at the least, is taken for interficere, to kill an ox, which afterward is laid on the wo●de and offered by invocation. The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doves, faciet unum pro peccato, & alterum in holocauslum, he shall prepare the one for a sin offering, and the other to be a burnt offering, where facere signifieth, as before, to make ready by killing, drawing washing, and dressing as the Law prescribed. The same Hebrew verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in both places, being spoken of the Calf, that Abraham made ready for his guests, the old interpreter turneth by the verb coquo. which signifieth to dress as a cook dresseth. Genesis. 18. Wherefore we have not yet found facere in the scripture, for sacrificare to offer sacrifice. But Saunder saying it sk●leth not whether it be joined with another word in the accusative, or ablative case, or stand alone, doth insinuate, that although in scripture it cannot be proved to have that signification, yet in some other writer, it is used for sacrificare, joined with a noun of the ablative case, namely in Virgil, Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito, where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice, but understand oblationen, or rem di●●nam, or some such like word. But in our text the circumstance of deeds and words (saith he) do make it so to signify. First because the 14. day at evening he began the blessed sacrifice of his passion. Secondly, he hath offered the old Paschal Lamb, the chief sacrifice of the Law. These two circumstances, show it was time to go about his only sacrifice on the cross, they prove not that he offered another sacrifice at the table. Thirdly hetoke bread and wine into his hands, part of the sacrifice of Melchisedek. I answer, the scripture telleth us not of any such sacrifice of Melchisedek. Fourthly, he blessed and gave thanks, wherein he consecrateth his own body, the only sacrifice of mankind. I answer, his own body had no need of consecration: he consecrated bread to be a sacrament of his body, which was not the only sacrifice for mankind, which was but once and no more offered, or to be offered. Not that he should oftentimes offer up himself, saith the Apostle. Heb. 9 ver. 25. wherefore his commandment hoc facite, do this, is not to make a sacrifice of Christ's body, which he made not. But Cyptian (saith Saunder) taketh the verb facere so, lib. 2. Ep. 3. jesus Christus etc. jesus Christ our Lord and God himself is the highest priest of God the father, and first hath offered sacrifice unto God the father, Et hoc fieri 〈◊〉 sui commemorationem praecepit, and hath commanded this thing to be done in his remembrance. That fieri signifieth here not offerri, but generally hath relation to all that Christ did: not only the whole argument of the Epistle which was against ministering with water only, but also the very words following, which Saunder hath fraudulently cut off, declare sufficiently, utique ille saccrdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur &c: Verily that Priest doth truly supply the room of Christ, which imitateth that which Christ hath done: and then he offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the father in the Church, if he so begin to offer, according as he may see Christ himself to have offered. Nay, that Cyprian meaneth not that Christ in his supper did offer his own body in sacrifice to his father, for redemption of he world, but only a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and commanded the same to be kept in remembrance of his passion. Cyprian himself testifieth in the same Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimus (passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we make mention of his passion, in all sacrifices (for the sacrifice which we offer, is the passion of our Lord) we ought to do nothing, but that which he himself did.  
Note here the sacrifice which Cyprian offered, was the passion of Christ: as well as the body of Christ, but it was not the passion of Christ properly, therefore it was not the body of Christ properly. I might allege other places out of that Epistle, to refel the impudency of Saunder: but this is sufficient, that neither facere in Cyprian, signifieth to sacrifice, neither the body of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him, then as it suffered in his sacrifice.  
The 20. circumstance of the pronoun Hoc. 
Saunder.   
Christ saith, do, or make this thing, or as Haymo 
Fulke.  saith. Make this body, for he saith not, sic facite, do so, but hoc facite, do or make this thing: I have answered sufficiently this making in the first book, where Saunder findeth fault with our translation, whereunto I add that which Cyprian writeth, in the Epistle last mentioned. Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id not obaudire & facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, & quod faciendum esse mandavit, cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat, si feceritis quod mando vobis, iam non dico vos servos sed amicos. etc. If in the sacrifice which is Christ, none but Christ is to be followed: verily that we ought to obey and to do, which Christ did, and commanded to be done, seeing he himself saith in his Gospel, if you shall do that which I command you, now do I not call you servants, but friends. In this saying, Cyprian referreth the verb facere, to all things that Christ did, and not to making his body. But if we should grant facere to signify only to make, yet could Saunder get no more of us by making, but a sacrament of his body: yet for his exposition, he saith, he hath justinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris, Anno Dom. 1551. where he writeth thus. The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels, have delivered, that jesus gave them thus in commandment, who when he had taken bread, and given thanks, said, Do and make this thing, for the remembrance of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say my body.  
First Saunder hath put in more words than justinus, for he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which Saunder giveth Do and make, he might as well have added, and sacrifice. Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth upon the error of the Printer, omitting one small letter o, for in the next line continuing the history of the institution, he rehearseth the very words of Christ. This is my blood, wherefore there is no doubt, but lustinus telling what Christ said, doth not only rehearse these words, Do this in remembrance of me, but also these: This is my body, and so have all the translators taken it, as Saunder doth confess. Neither doth the process of justinus, prove that he did write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he said, before they took the meat, that was consecrated by the word of prayer, to be the flesh and blood of Christ, for that the Apostles do witness that Christ hath given them such a precept, Hoc facite, do or make this thing, that is to say my body: for he proveth it by the whole history of the institution, remaining in the commentaries of the Apostles, in which it is written, that Christ said, Do this in remembrance of me, This is my body, & likewise after he had taken the cup and given thanks, that he said, This is my blood. This process therefore declareth, what Christ said, as well in the one part, as in the other, and therefore excludeth the vain cavillation of Saunder, grounded upon a letter missing in one print, which in other copies is not omitted, as all the translations declare.  
The 21. circumstance, of the words, in meam commemorationem 
Saunder.  for the remembrance of me.  
The end of the institution was the remembrance of Christ's death, but that is best remembered by the 
Fulke.  presence of himself, ergo he is really present: for Christ would make the best remembrance that could be. I answer, Christ saith in the remembrance of me, and not only of his dying, but of me dying and redeeming. It is against the nature of recordation, or having in mind, to have the thing remembered actually present, & therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be retaining the nature of recordation, and considering other circumstances to be considered, as he did in all tokens that ever he made, which were the best that could be devised, for God in all things doth the best: wherefore this reason of Sand, would prove the real presence of Christ in all sacraments, that were before his incarnation, as well as in this. And whereas Chrysostom saith, Christ himself is daily set before us, that we should not forget him: he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians, where he saith, he was crucified among them, and to the Corinthians, saying: his glory showed unto us, with uncovered face which is by doctrine, more clear than the figures of the Law. Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament only. Last of all, whereas a pot of Manna, was commanded to be reserved for a memorial, unto the children of Israel, with what bread the Lord had fed their fathers in the wilderness, to prove that a thing may be the remembrance of itself: I answer, that it is nothing like. For there a part of that visible food was reserved, for a sensible token of remembrance, not of itself, but of that which was eaten being of the same kind. But in this sacrament, there is no such matter, except we should believe the tales of a bloody finger seen in the patten etc. as a part of the whole body, etc. and the Papists confess, that Christ is not sensibly present, as that Manna was.  
The 22. circumstance of these words, drink ye all of this. 
Saunder.   
They all drank of one cup, judas and all (saith he) 
Fulke.  for if two or three had drunk up all, either Christ must have consecrated the cup again, or the rest must have received a drink not consecrated, as they do in England, when one cup is drunk up, an other is filled out of a profane pot, that standeth by: therefore this circumstance doth show, that more than wine is drunk. This conclusion shallbe granted, of them that drink worthily, without this circumstance, and of them that drink unworthily also, for they drink judgement to themselves. But concerning consecration, Saunder imagineth it to be a magical murmuring of words over that wine which is present in one cup. Whereas the consecration of Christ, and the ministers of England, is a dedicating to the holy use of the supper, of so much bread and wine, as shallbe occupied in the celebration, and neither more nor less. But because he saith, it is not the will of Christ, that one Priest should consecrate in one ma●●eany more than once, each kind of the sacrament, because Christ died but once, and then both kinds together, because his blood and soul must be signified, apart from his flesh and body. I ask him what large cup they had, or how often in a day they said mass in the time of Leo, bishop of Rome, when a great Cathedral Church, as big as Paul's Church in London, was diverse times in one day filled with communicants? Leo Ep. 79. I marvel what vessel of wine was consecrated to serve them all, if it be necessary to have it in one cup when it is consecrated, as Saunder seemeth to affirm, or else how many cups they had standing on the table, that could suffice so great a multitude, that all must drink of the blood of Christ, though there be divers chalices which hold it, when the people are many as Saunder saith, I doubt not, understanding the blood of Christ sacramentally: but I marvel with what face he can reprove our ministration with profane wine, if we did minister so as he slandreth us, when he and his fellows do altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christ's blood, and give them nothing but profane wine.  
The 23. circumstance of these words, this 
Saunder.  is my blood.  
Because it is in the common vulgar translation, Hic est 
Fulke.  sanguis meus, Saunder maketh not a little ado, that hic can agree with none, but sanguis: but when the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc of the neuter gender, it may well be translated this thing, and so the relation must be to the wine, like as the other Evangelist render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this cup, that is the wine in this cup: for blood it cannot be, before the words of consecration, if they will hold their own principles. And therefore the best interpreters, to take away cavilling, turn it, Hoc est sanguis meus, This thing is my blood, as this thing is my body, where est may still stand for significat. And yet I deny not, but hic est sanguis and haec est caro, may well be used, as Cyprian doth in the same sense: for a relative between two antecedents, or an adjective between two substantives of diverse genders, may agree with either of them without any change of the sense, as in Genesis. Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis & caro de carne mea, haec vocabitur virago. This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shallbe called woman. Here the Pronoune is of both the genders, and yet there was conversion of a bone into a woman. Likewise God speaking of the Rainbow, which is there the Masculine gender, Gen. 9 saith: hoc est signum foederis, where hoc agreeth with signum, yet the sense is hic arcus est signum, this bow is the sign. Absolom. Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a pillar, called in the vulgar translation ti●●lum, which is of the masculine gender, and thereof saith: Hoc erit monimentum nominis, this shallbe the monument of my name, meaning this pillar, and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it. I might multiply examples, infinitely, if these were not sufficient to show the vanity of Saunder, which of the gender of the pronoun, would prove the speech not to be figurative. Where he saith, we build a roof without walls or foundation, as Hierom saith of heretics, that neglecting the literal sense, builded all their fantasies upon allegories: I answer, we do not so but rather the Papists, which build a sacrament without an element, denying bread and wine to remain in the supper, as for the literal sense of scripture, we believe to be the only true sense, although the words many times be unproper and figurative, even as Saunder himself both in his rotten Rock, and in this book taketh, this to be the literal sense of these words, I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning authority.  
What the new testament is whereof the holy 
Saunder.  scripture speaketh.  
A testament (he saith) is a solemn ordaining of a thing by 
Fulke.  words confirmed by death of the testator, dedicated with a sacrifice, offered to God bloodily. The new Testament is a covenant or truce made by Christ with us, to have forgiveness of sins, if we keep his law. The blood of the old Testament was put in a basin, the blood of the new Testament in a Chalice. I omit, that he saith, the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporal inheritance, for keeping the law. But to return to the new Testament, which he so handleth, that there is neither rhyme nor reason in his argument. Three things (saith he) are required in a solemn Testament, the covenant, bloodshedding, and application of the blood. When Christ saith, This is my blood of the new testament, either all these, or one of these may be called the new testament. But when saint Luke, and saint Paul report Christ to have said, This cup is the new testament in my blood, they seem (saith he) to take the word Testament, for the substance of the thing which doth confirm the new testament, & not properly for the new truce or promise thereof. What say you, Saunder? is there any unproper speech in the words of consecration? is a substance expressed by the name of an accident? where be the nouns, pronownes, verbs, & paticiples; where be the relatives, antecedents, cases and genders, that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum? why serve they not here? But hear a little more. This that is in the Chalice (saith he) is not the promise of remitting sins, but it is the new testament in Christ's blood: That is to say, it is the thing that confirmeth the new law. Why sir? even now you told us that it might be called a new testament, as it is a law, covenant, or promise. Will you make us believe, that the Evangelists reporting one saying of Christ, which can have but one sense, in the one of them the new testament is taken for a promise; in the other it is not taken for a promise? But let it be the thing that confirmeth the promise: what thing is that I pray you? His blood, you will say. Why then, the sense of these words, the new testament in my blood, is my blood in my blood. This cup is my blood in my blood: What sense is this? But Sedulius I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix etc. Therefore the Chalice is called the testament, because it did bear witness that the passion should be soon after, & now it testifieth that it is done: although you are feign to alter the common reading, & to put in testamentum for testamenti. How prove you by these words, that Sedulius was of your mind? Alas he hath nothing to say, but being taken with a figurative speech, he slinketh away like a Dog that is whipped, with his tail between his legs. For these words of Christ, This cup is the new testament in my blood: if all the Grammarians in the world have them in hand, to construe, cannot have a Grammatical sense, but must needs be taken figuratively, and being so taken, chaseth transubstantiation out of the doors, for the true sense of them can be none other, but this. This cup is a seal of the new testament established in my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins, and the like understanding must needs be of these words, This is my body.  
The 24. circumstance of the blood of the] 
Sande●.  new testament.  
The blood of the new testament is the blood th●t confirmeth the new testament, but that is real blood, 
Fulke.  therefore this is real blood, saith Saunder. I answer, the argument is nought, because in one proposition, the speech is figurative, in the other proper. But he replieth, that the old testament, had none other thing to signify the blood thereof, but the blood of Calves, therefore the new testament hath nothing but the blood of Christ. I answer, the blood of Calves and Goats was itself a figure of the blood of Christ, by which the new testament is confirmed, and therefore, there was no figure of that blood to be made. Heb. 9  
But S. Luke and S. Paul, by reciting the words otherwise, do so evidently name blood in the proper signification, that no reasonable man will say, that the name of blood standeth figuratively for the sign of blood, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood. In deed I confess in this sentence, the word blood, signifieth properly, the blood of Christ, shed upon the cross, which is that blood which answereth the blood of the old Testament and not that which is in the Chalice. But then the former words: This cup is the new testament, are figurative, for in proper manner of speaking the cup was not, ●e is not, the new testament, but a sacrament or sign thereof, which new testament was confirmed by the blood of Christ powered forth in sacrifice upon the cross. This one sword is sufficient to cut the throat of transubstantiation & carnal presence: for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul, give the true sense of these words, This is my blood, which is shed for you, which in effect is thus much to say, this is the sacrament or seal of the new testament established by shedding of my blood on the cross. But Saunder can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul, but blood taken properly, whereby he would prove, that in the speech reported by the other Evangelists, blood should not be taken figuratively, which is as good an argument as this. Blood in the exposition of a figurative speech, is taken properly, therefore in figurative speech itself, it is not taken figuratively.  
The 25. circumstance, of these words: This ●●ppe or Chalice. 
Saunder.   
The cup (saith he) is named to show the manner 
Fulke.  of fulfilling the old figures, in which the blood was put in a cup, as Chrysostom and Oecumenius affirmed, and presently sprinkled. I deny not that the cup might show the manner of fulfilling the old, figures of sprinkling of blood in the sacrifices, but that was referred to the passion of Christ, and not to the sacrament, for those bloody sacrifices, were figures of Christ's bloody sacrifice, in which was fulfilled whatsoever they did signify, and not in the supper. The supper, as Augustine sayeth of all our Sacraments, is diverse in sign, but equal in signification, with those ancient Sacraments in joan. Tra. 26. The putting of blood in the ba●en, did not show the pouring of wine into the cup, as Saunder trifleth, but they both did signify the pouring forth of the blood of Christ upon the cross. But Oecumenius saith, that in steed of the blood of beasts, our Lord giveth his own blood, and that well in a cup, that he might show the old Testament to have shadowed this thing before. I answer, that Occumenius a late writer, to whose authority I am not bound, of the Sacrament, speaketh sacramentally, ascribing to the sign, that which is proper to the thing signified. Otherwise, there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation.  
The 26. circumstance of the verb est, left out in S. Luke's words. 
Saunder.   
Saint Luke leaveth out the verb ●s, according to the 
Fulk.  phrase of the Hebrew tongue, what verb will you bring in his place? (saith he) the verb significat you cannot, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Nominative case, then must you needs have the verb est: but as soon as it is in his place, shall it immediately be cast out and changed into the verb significat, & c?  
And here he amplifieth the matter with such eloquence as Rhetoric will afford him. But when you have spoken your pleasure of taking in, and casting out, of compulsion & enforcements, of verbs substantive and adjective etc. I pray you, what great piaculum is it, if being compelled to take in the verb substantive to make perfect the grammatical sense, we be also enforced to understand est for significat, to make good the logical sense? And how in God's name do you understand the verb substantive est, in these words of Saint Luke: This cup is the new Testament, in your 23. circumstance, when you expound it so, that you say, that which is in the cup, is not the new Testament, which is the new truce or covenant of remitting sins, but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed? You will say, the figure is in the words new Testament, and not in the verb es●. Then must I set upon you, with your own weapons which you fight with all in the 18. circumstance. I would feign see the brazen face of Saunder, with what countenance he would defend this shameless stuff.  
The 27. circumstance of these words, which is shed for you.  
This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which 
Saunder.  is shed for you, saith S. Luke. Here (saith Saunder) the 
Fulke.  relative, which, is referred to the Noun Cup, and not to the Noun Blood, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominative case, and can not agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the dative case, wherefore the sense must be the cup, that is, that which is in the cup, was shed for us. but the only real blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our sins, therefore the only real blood of Christ was contained in the cup. And here he asketh what answer can be framed to this argument, if hell were let lose. To the grammatical construction I have answered sufficiently, in confutation of his rotten rock of the Romish Church, unto the g. his 9 mark of an Antichristian. That if he will neither admit the conjecture of Beza, that those words might, by error of the writers, be taken into the text, nor that S. Luke useth the figure of Soloecophanes, in that place, as in diverse other: yet at the jest, that the article prepositive standeth for the relative 〈◊〉, as often it doth, and that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here understood, being left out as in the former part of the sentence, For howsoever it be, it can not be translated nor understood thus: This cup, that is to say this blood, which is shed for you, is the new Testament in my blood. For what sense can these words have? This blood is the new Testament, and this blood is in my blood. And now to the argument in which seeing he understandeth the speech to be proper, I deny the mayor or proposition. This liquor in the cup of Christ's banquet was shed for us, and I prove it to be false even by the words of Christ uttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew. The fruit of the vi●e was not shed for us, the liquor in the cup of Christ's banquet, was the fruit of the vine: therefore the liquor in the cup of Christ's banquet was not shed for us. That Euthymius a late gatherer, referreth these words of shedding for us, to the cup, I force not, and yet he meaneth the cup to be his blood not really, but Sacramentally, even as his blood is not there shed really, except the Papists will now give over their old distinction of unbloody Sacrifice, to say that the blood of Christ is shed forth in the Sacrament, as Saunder saith it was presently shed in a mystery, and the next day shed naturally. What misty speech is this? The natural blood of Christ is shed in a mystery, if we speak after that manner, the real body and blood of Christ is present in a mystery, eaten and drunken in a mystery, etc. he crieth out that we build a roof without a foundation of the natural manner of presence and receiving. But he must be admonished that the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying which is shed forth, and simply shed, and therefore the word hath relation to the blood which in his passion was shed forth of his body. which shedding forth of his body, if Saunder will confess to be in his Mass, he must utterly renounce the unbloody Sacrifice, so much prated of among the Papists, for what else is a bloody Sacrifice, but that whereof the blood is powered out or shed forth?  
The last circumstance of the hymn said at Christ's supper.  
We never read of any hymn said or sung after any 
Saunder.  feast, but this, and yet Christ gave himself by faith and 
Fulk.  spirit at the supper time, to some of his disciples, before that night as to S. Marry at Bethanie, joan. 12. therefore the hymn externally sung or said, was dew to this external work of God, wherein with his own hands, he gave his own body and blood, etc. Because Saunder confesseth that this circumstance above doth not prove the real presence, I will take his confession, It may not be denied but that Christ song or said the hymn at other times, although it be expressed but this once. And if it were certain, that this was the first and last that he song with them, yet there might be great and sufficient cause of his joyful thanksgiving at this time, wherein he made an end of the old ceremony, and having instituted a new sacrament of thanksgiving, was even the same night to begin his passion, which was the principal caufe of his coming into the world for the redemption of mankind. As for these circumstances which he confesseth, do not every one by themself prove the real presence: when he can make an argument of them altogether able to prove it, I will take in hand to answer it. In the mean time, as he hath set them down severally, I have answered, that never a one of them hath any force of argument to prove that he intendeth by them.   

CAP. X.  
The real presence of Christ's body and blood, and the proper meaning of his words, is proved by the conference of holy scriptures, 
Saunder.  taken out of the new testament, and speaking of our Lord's supper.  
The places that he will confer, are three: first, john. 6. The bread which I will give, is my flesh: and my 
Fulke.  flesh is meat indeed. The second, Math. 26. Take, eat, this is my body, and, this cup is the new testament in my blood. The third, 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not the communicating of Christ's blood▪ And the bread which we break, is it not the communicating of the body of our Lord? Of these sentences Saunder will confer every word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture, to confer the words whereof some are proper, some are figurative: but to confer the Logical sense of divers places together, which either are both manifest in their several senses, or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places. But to follow Sanders conference. In the first sentence he saith, The bread which I will give, is described in the supper, by these words, Take, eat (this:) and in S. Paul is called, The bread which we break. But I utterly deny, that the words of Christ in Saint john, are all one with those of the supper. And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or food etc. is not showed by that conference. But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speak in deed both of one matter, namely by the sacrament: Christ in S. john speaketh of that meat which tarrieth to life everlasting, but the sacramental meat doth not so: for according to the earthly part of it, as Origen affirmeth, it goeth the same way that all other meats do. Ille cibus qui sanctificatur, etc. That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, according to that which it hath material, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the dunghill, Origen, in Matth, cap. 15. And according to the heavenly part which is the body of Christ, by the Papists confession, it tarrieth not in the wicked, nor in the godly in substance, but in effect as Saunder told before, therefore Christ in S. john speaketh not of the sacramental meat.  
Secondly, the breaking of the bread, which is done before the words which the Papists account the only words of consecration can show the pronoun this, to signify no material substance but bread: although Saunder affirm, the breaking to be after, because it is so used in the popish Mass. Again when the Apostle saith the bread which we break, he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually, but so is not the body of Christ: as for Sanders shift of that food, and that eatable thing, which we break, is but a cloak of words, for if that food be the natural body of Christ, and that food is naturally broken, than the natural body of Christ, is naturally and really broken. Last of all, the conference of this and this cup, to prove that this, meaneth generally the substance under this, is not worth a chip, for these words this cup, do not mean a general metaphysical substance, but the wine in this cup which is also called the fruit of the vine, and therefore This in the other saying, signifieth that substance only, which was in his hand, which was bread, and by their own doctrine could be no other substance but bread, before hoc est corpus meum were said all out, over it. The verb, is, in the words of Christ, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, although it respect the natural flesh of Christ, yet it proveth not, that the verb, is, in the supper must be referred to the son, more than the same verb in Saint Paul the Rock was Christ: yet because you may see what a foolish conference Saunder maketh of words, I will reason with him in his own sense, and overthrow him in his own conference.  
I say not (saith Saunder) that the bread shallbe, but the bread is my flesh. If the bread is his flesh, than his flesh is the bread: and if the word, bread, signify an eatable thing, as we have been often told, then the flesh of Christ is an eatable thing, when he so saith: and consequently, the flesh of Christ, which he said he would give for the life of the world, might be eaten before the institution of the Sacrament. The word communicating, is the next matter of conference, which being used of S. Paul, doth interpret the verb Is, to signify a substantial, and not an accidental being: for communicating doth show, that all thing is common between it and Christ's flesh: no division, no separation, no distinction cometh between these two, but a bar● sign of bread can make no such communicating, because it is clean of another kind, etc. That Sanders argument may be the stronger, he disputeth against that often times, which we utterly deny. For we never said, that natural bread or a bare sign, can make us to have communion with Christ, but the very body & blood of Christ, yet not corporally but spiritually joined unto us, of which communicating, the bread and wine are effectual seals & sacraments. As for Sanders assertion, of communicating to signify all thing common between Christ and us, not only without division, but even with out distinction, is horrible heresy, and detestable blasphemy. Saint john, Ep. 1. Cap. 1. useth the same word often, saying, that we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating with God the father, and his son jesus Christ, have we then all thing common with God the father, so that there is no distinction between us and him? O intolerable blasphemy! The same Apostle saith, we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 communicating one with another, by which he not only showeth, that the word of communicating, signifieth not all that which Saunder saith it doth: but also teacheth, that our communicating with Christ, and with the members of Christ, is spiritual, whereof S. Paul speaketh, 1. Cor. 10. We being many, are one body, etc. And last of all, that we have this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or communicating by other means then by receiving the Sacrament. That we have seen and heard, saith Saint john, we preach unto you, that you also may have communicating with us, & that our communicating may be with the father and with his son jesus Christ. Again, if we walk in the light, as he is light, we have communicating one with another, and the blood of jesus Christ his son, doth purge us from all sin.  
The last words of conference, are body and blood, for which he heapeth up so many texts, as they are named in, and more then either they are named & meant in, to prove that body and blood stand not for sign or figure of body and blood, and in the end concludeth, that because these words are taken properly, therefore, to defend the words of Christ's supper to be figurative, is ignorance in Grammar and Logic, blindness in divinity, malice inexcusable in the day of judgement. But so long as it is but Sanders sophistical conclusion, it is little to be regarded. what Logic, divinity, or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus, let all the Logicians, divines, and men of good conscience consider, until Christ come and judge all things. The word body in this saying: This is my body, is not figurative, therefore the whole saying is not figurative. This, signifieth a general thing, and not that thing in his hand: Is, declareth that to be presently, which is not until all the words be said: body, is taken properly: Therefore the sense of this whole saying, uttered together, cannot be figurative. But now we shall see conference of other places of scripture. It is evident (he saith) that john is not Elias, and useth many arguments to prove it: yet will he admit no arguments out of the present words, This is my body, to prove that the saying is figurative, as well as, This is Elias. And yet there is more odds between the body of Christ, and natural bread, then (he saith) is manifest between john and Elias. Secondly, The rock was Christ, must needs be figurative, because it speaketh of two diverse natures: as though bread and the body of Christ were not two diverse natures. But there is no conversion of any rock into Christ: for Christ did neither say of the rock, This is my body, nor command us so to say. Seeing the holy ghost saith, the rock was Christ: who doubteth, but that it was so by the word of Christ, although not expressed by Moses? And seeing the Apostle speaketh so, in the time past, who will deny but that Moses or any man by the authority of God's words, at such time as the Israelites did drink of it, might have said of the rock: This is Christ?  
The other places which prove, the absence of Christ in his human nature from the world, as the poor ye shall have always, but me you shall not have always, He is risen, he is ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of God, etc. Saunder saith, they deny not his invisible presence in the Sacrament, neither is any thing impossible to God, and Christ sitting in heaven is almighty, etc. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles, that they shall see him no more after his ascension, saying, I go to my father, and you shall see me no more, john 16. ver. 10. but also he telleth them plainly, and without any parable, as they confess, that he leaveth the world and goeth to his father. Io. 16. ver. 20. whereas if he had said, I depart out of the world, when he only departed out of sight, and purposed still to be present invisibly, he had not spoken plainly, but very darkly. Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd. lib. 3. saith, it is a great miracle, that he which sitteth with his father in heaven, at the same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and delivereth himself to those that will touch and embrace him. It is manifest, he speaketh of the heavenly mystery figuratively. For immediately before he saith: when thou seest turbam circumfusam, pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rub●fieri, etc. the people standing about to be dipped and made red with that precious blood: dost thou think thou art still among mortal men, and standest upon the earth? Art thou not rather immediately removed into the heavens? Dost thou not casting away all cogitation of flesh, with naked soul and pure mind, look round about upon those things that are in heaven? These words declare plainly, that Chrysostom dreamt not of transubstantiation, but spoke of a spiritual handling and receiving of Christ, as of a spiritual dipping and making red the people with his precious blood, and of feeding on Christ in heaven by faith. And so it is more wonderful, that we in body remaining on the earth, do feed on Christ sitting in heaven, not by bringing him down unto us, but by lifting us up unto him. The places of scripture that Saunder quoteth, as pertaining to the supper, although they all pertain not unto it, yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnal manner of presence, I shall easily answer it.   

CAP. XI.  
Why the Sacrament is called bread 
Saunder.  after consecration  
If Master Saunder had first proved, that the Sacrament 
Fulk.  is not bread after consecration, we might easily have yielded to the reason that might be brought why it is called, that which in nature it is not. As we can yield many reasons, why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ, although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it: yet it is meet, that first we prove that it is not his body after that manner, that the Papists defend, and then show reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signify. But let us hear Sanders reasons.  
First the Hebrew tongue, which the Evangelists & Apostles writing Greek, doth follow, useth the name bread for all manner of food. Secondly, a thing is called by the name of that which it was, and not which it is, as Aaron's rod is said to have devoured the rods of the conjurers, yet was it turned from a rod to a serpent. Exod. 7.  
Thirdly, a thing is called not only as it is, but as it seemeth outwardly to be: so the Angel which the woman saw at the sepulchre, is called a young man. Mark 16. And in all these three respects, the Sacrament is called bread, when it is not natural bread. For it is a kind of food, it was bread, and seemeth to be bread. But I will prove, that in none of these respects, it is called bread, but because it is natural bread in deed, without conversion of the substance.  
First, whatsoever is said in Saint john. Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament: for bread is there taken figuratively for spiritual food, which we have without the Sacrament.  
Secondly, when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread, after consecration, there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for material bread, changed in use, not in substance as the name of bread taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the bread which we break, he showeth plainly, that he speaketh of material bread, for the body of Christ, nor spiritual food, nor general food are not broken. Secondly, in the conversion of Aaron's rod, there was a sensible change, there is none such in the Sacrament. Thirdly, as the Angel had some appearance of a man in external shape of body, so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angel, and no man: but the Sacramental bread hath in it all tokens of material bread, and no sensible token of the body of Christ, therefore the comparison is nothing like. The water turned into wine, was judged by the taste to be wine & not water. There can be no such judgement in the Sacramental bread: for as material bread it tasteth, and partaketh all accidents: yea, it nourisheth, and corrupteth, which neither bare accidents, nor the body of Christ doth or can do.  
The authorities that Saunder citeth, to prove, that the Sacramental bread, is called the body and flesh of Christ, do not deny that it is material bread: yea, many of the old writers, expressly affirm, that it is so. Yet let us consider his authorities. Ignatius, Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith. Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Christi: I desire the bread of God, quod, which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily, Ignatius saith no more here, then Zwinglius said, which was no friend to transubstantiation. Secondly, justinus saith, Hic cibus, etc. this meat is called with us the Eucharist, or thanksgiving: & after he saith: We take not these things as common bread & drink, but we have learned that the meat which is consecrated by the words of prayer, taken of him, to be the flesh & blood of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be common bread, doth not deny it to be natural bread. And justinus interlaceth that which Saunder omitteth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That meat, of which our blood & flesh, by transmutation are nourished, we have learned to be the flesh & blood of that jesus, that was incarnate. That which nourisheth our flesh & blood, is material bread, although it be not common bread. Thirdly, Hilary saith: Nos verè etc. we truly take the word flesh, in our lords meat. The same Hilary saith afterward: verè sub mysterio, truly, under 2 mystery, we receive the flesh of his body. Fourthly, Cyprian, lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith, Christ offered bread & wine, that is to say, his own body & blood. Here Saunder cutteth off the beginning of Cyprians words, which manifestly prove material bread & wine: Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat, id est, panem & vinu, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem: He offered the self same thing that Melchizedek had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, namely his body & blood. Speak Saunder, & tell us, was it not material bread & wine which Melchizedek brought forth? the self-same thing, saith Cyprian, offered Christ, which yet was his body & blood, after a certain manner. After what manner you may learn, In these words, you have not only the spiritual manner, after which the bread and wine are called his body and blood, but also the same bread and wine, to be made of corns & grapes, which I trow can be none other but material bread and wine. Fifthly, Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread, but the Eucharisty. lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith: that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant, terrena & coelesti, the Sacrament consisteth of two things, an earthly thing, and an heavenly. Likewise he saith, that of the bread & wine, being made the Eucharisty, auge●ur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia, the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth. lib. 5. that is not of accidents, nor of the real body of Christ. Sixtly, Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daily bread, supersubstantial bread, and yet I ween, it be still natural food of the body. But he saith more. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus: sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit: It is not the bread which goeth into the body, but that bread of ever lasting life, which holdeth up the substance of our soul. I like this saying of Ambrose, or whosoever writ that book, very well. The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body, ergo the Sacrament is not the natural body of Christ, which the Papists affirm to be a kind of bread, that goeth into the body. Seventhly, Gregory of Nyssa saith, in vita Mosis, panis est, etc. It is bread provided for us, without seed, without ploughing, without any other work of man. But he saith immediately before, that it is received with a pure and clean mind, and is an heavenly meat, therefore a spiritual food, spiritually to be received, and not bodily Eightly, S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Io●n saith. when would flesh understand this thing, th●● he called bread flesh? In deed the spiritual manner of nourishing, is not possible to be understood of the flesh, but the fleshly transubstantiation may be understood of every fleshly man. ninthly, Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paul saith, is eaten unworthily, nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis, the nourisher of our spiritual substance. He meaneth, if it be worthily received, otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth unworthily. Lastly, Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saith of the bread which Christ gave to judas. Panem cui tradidit ipse, Qui panis tradendus erat. To whom he himself gave bread, which bread was to be betrayed. A great miracle, if a Poet speak specially. But now directy against transubstantiation, speak many doctors. Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat, by that which it hath material, goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draft. Likewise, the matter of the bread profiteth not, etc. Theodoret Di●l. 1. saith, Simbola, etc. The symbols or tokens which are seen, he honoured with the name of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to the nature. Likewise Dialog. 2. he saith, Manent in p●iori substantia, the bread and wine after sanctification, abide in their former substance.  
Gelasius, a bishop of Rome, count Eutich. writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament: Et tamen esse non definit substantia & natura panis & vini. The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to remain.  
These sayings with diverse other, are direct against transubstantiation, and therefore lewdly doth Saunder abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers, to prove it, of which, not one of them hath a reasonable colour, when it is examined.   

CAP. XII.  
The presence of the body & blood of Christin his last supper, is 
Saunder.  proved by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old testament.  
In deed of scriptures he bringeth either vain allegories 
Fulke.  & fantastical figures of his own brain, or else shamefully racketh the sentences of the old testament, to make them prophecies of transubstantiation, which were not once spoken of the Sacrament. And first he slandereth S. Paul to have said, that to the jews all things chanced in figures, where he saith of such things, as came to pass in the wilderness: all these things happened to them, as figures or examples, & are written for our instruction. And although Saint Paul had so said, as he reporteth, yet it followeth not, that he may draw their figures whither he will. He beginneth with the figure of Abel, whom he maketh the first shepherd, Priest, Martyr, and perpetual Virgin, in all which he would have him to be a figure of Christ. Although that he was the first shepherd, it is not like, for it is not to be thought that Adam altogether neglected the feeding of cattle, before Abel took it in hand: no more than it is like, that he occupied no tillage, before Cainefell unto it. But that he calleth Abel the first Priest, it is utterly false. For Adam was the first Priest, and received or God the law of sacrificing, which he taught unto his sons: except Saunder think, that Adam lived so many years, without exercise of religion, until Abel and Cain were made Priests. For Cain is named to have offered sacrifice as soon as Abel. Whereby it is probable, that neither of them both, was Priest, but Adam the head of the family, to whom they brought their several oblations, unto that place, which was called the presence of the Lord, from whence Cain was banished after his murder committed. Concerning Abel's virginity, I will not contend, although if I should follow the jewish traditions, as Saunder doth in his allegorical comparison in diverse points, I must say, he was a married man, having to wife his sister Delbora. But to the comparison Saunder saith, that Abel first offered himself under the shape of other things, and after went forth to be offered in his own person, being traitorously slain. This is nothing else, but a drowsy dream of Sanders sleepy head. The sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of Christ's death, and not of his last supper. Neither did he offer himself, under the shape of his sat lambs, but he offered his lambs in sign, that God by the mediation of Christ's death, should accept him. Neither did Abel go forth of purpose to be offered in his own person, when he was murdered, as Christ did, neither was the death of Abel a sacrifice, whose blood cried vengeance, whereas the blood of Christ's sacrifice crieth mercy Heb. 11. Wherefore this is nothing else but a gross abusing of the Scriptures, to feign such foolish figures which have no ground in the word of God, but are such as every one will invent out of his own imagination. Even as that jest of Saunder, that Cain did bear a figure of the English communion, in which nothing but a few bsse fruits of the earth are offered: when much rather, I might say, that Cain did bear a figure of the murdering church of Rome, which hath slain so many Abel's, because her sacrifice of the fruits of the earth, is no better accepted. But what should I trifle after so vain a manner? The second figure is of Melchizedek, which in deed seemed plausible to many of the old fathers. Against all which, I oppose the credit of the Apostle to the Hebrews, who omitting nothing that in Melchizedeks' priesthood might be referred to Christ, maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread and wine, which Melchizedek brought forth of princely liberality, & not of priestly duty. And yet it is a vain thing for the Papists to brag of Melchizedeks' bread & wine, when they in their sacrifice will acknowledge to remain, neither bread nor wine. But of all that ever I heard, it is a most impudent comparison, that Saunder maketh of Melchizedek consecrating Abraham by blessing of him, that was really present, as it were in his hands: And Christ consecrating his own body & blood present in his hands at the time of his blessing & consecrating, and tanteth the Sacramentaries for acknowledging the one & denying the other. Although he speak contrary to popery, which teacheth the presence to be after consecration, and not at the time of consecrating. But what bridle may hold in the shameless fury of Saunder?  
The third figure is of the paschal lamb, which was a figure of Christ's death, and so applied by S. john in that saying, you shall not break a bone of him. joan. 19 & S. Paul. 1. Cor. 5. & not a figure of the supper, from which as it differeth in sign, so it is all one in the thing signified. The fourth is the prophesy and figure of Manna, which as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10 was the same spiritual meat, that we eat, & not a figure thereof, but a sacrament of our spiritual feeding by the flesh of Christ, like as the water of the rock, which was Christ, was a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment by the blood of Christ. Wherefore the parts of this comparison, as they have been all answered before in the third book, so they are of no force to prove the real presence or transubstantiation, but the contrary, seeing the difference of these two Sacraments, Manna and the lords bread, is only in the signs, & nothing at all in the virtue of the things signified, according to S. Aug. rule. The fist figure is of the blood of the old Testament, whereunto the blood of Christ shed on the cross doth answer, as the Apostle manifestly teacheth Heb. 9 therefore these words of the supper: This is the blood of the new Testament, of necessity must be figurative, even as these which are of the same sense: This cup is the new Testament in my blood. For we may not so far advance the Sacrament, that we abase the death of Christ, which is the only Sacrifice for our sins. The sixth is the prophecy and figure of job, which is a manifest perverting of the scripture, from the true meaning: for either job complaineth of the cruelty of his servants, that would even eat his flesh in his adversity; and speaketh not of the love that his servants had to be joined unto his flesh, as the context of that place job. 31. doth evidently show; or else he showeth the complaint of his servants, that were so occupied in hospitality, that they had no leisure to eat their meat, and therefore desired to eat the mere that was provided for the stranger. Or if with Chrysost. we should understand their desire to be of eating of jobs flesh, yet it perreineth not to transubstantiation, seeing we may eat the flesh of Christ without eating of the Sacrament. The seventh conference is of prophecies taken out of David and Solomon, whereas neither of both speaketh of the Sacrament, David saith, Psa. 22. Thou hast prepared a table in my sight▪ against them who afflict me. By which words, he showeth how bountifully God had bestowed his benif●●● upon him, both in this life; and also with assurance of the 〈◊〉 to come, without any special regard unto the supper of Christ, or any Sacrament that was of the same signification unto him. The saying of Solomon, Pro. 9 I have an sweared in the beginning of this work, where it was placed by Saunder. The 8. conference, is another Prophecy of David, where he saith, all that be fat upon earth, have eaten & adored. Saunder saith, they have adored that which they do eat, but David saith not so, Ps. 21. but that they shall worship God the author of their food, as it followeth immediately: They shall all fall down etc. And whereas Saunder quoteth Aug. in Ps. 98. to justify the adoration of the blessed Sacrament of the altar, the footstool, wherein the fullness of the godhead corporally dwelleth: you shall understand that Augustine utterly denieth the Lord's supper to be that body that was crucified, but a Sacrament, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken us. The last conference is of many prophecies & figures, joined together, as he saith, for brevities sake. The first is of No being naked, after he was drunk, & laughed to scorn of his son. So saith Saunder was Christ after he had drunk his own blood in his supper, which he planted for himself in the virgins womb, hanged, naked, & laughed to scorn, not only of the jews, but also of the Sacramentaries, for so gross a deed, that he drank his own blood, under the form of wine. What shall I say to this monstrous blasphemy, wherein he compareth that filthy drunkenness, & shameless nakedness of Noah, to the holy mystery and passion of Christ? After this he joineth the cakes, that Abraham set before the Angels, as figures of that mystical cake which was to come in Christ's supper: but whereof then were the butter, milk, & calves flesh, figures? O madness more than folly: for now wheresoever bread, corn, wine, vines, fruits of the earth were named, all were figures of the sacrament, wherein yet he saith, is neither bread nor wine nor substance of any earthly fruit. Isaac blessed jacob which corn & wine, saying to Esau, what can I do more to thee● jacob prophesied of the fat bread of Aser, that should give dainties to the faithful kings of that church. God promiseth as the highest reward, for keeping of his commandment, to bless the loaves of his people, & to give abundance of bread & wine. If it be lawful for Saunder on this sort to play with the holy scriptures, he may prove what he list. And more probably might we prove the substance of bread & wine to remain in the Sacrament, of which the scripture speaketh so often with so great commendation, if we should reason after his manner. As for the meat of the sacrifice, the she we bread, the priests joaves: they were in deed figures of the spiritual feeding, that both they & we had & have of the flesh of Christ. But the curse of Elies' house, that his posterity should come & beg a morsel of bread, at the successors of Sadoc, it is a gross profanation of God's word to apply it to a submission of the Priests of the Church, to obtain the Sacrament. And the dissembling of David, before Achis, which came of infidelity, is blasphemous to apply to our Saviour Christ, and especially with such terms, as Saunder useth, At his last supper he driveled like a child, to their seeming, that be wise in the world. he changed his countenance, and carried himself after a sort, in his own hands, when holding and giving to be eaten, that which seemed bread, he doubted not to say, this is my body, etc. For Christ carrying himself after a sort in his own hands, Augustine is cited in Ps. 33. who being deluded with that fond translation, & ferebatur in manibus suis, (which is neither according to the Hebrew text 1. Sam. 21. which saith, he played the mad man in their hands, nor according to the vulgar Latin, which saith, & collabebatur inter manus eorum, he fell down among their hands) troubleth himself to find how David as a figure of Christ, should be carried in his own hands, and at length concludeth that Christ, ipse se portabat quodammodo he carried himself after a certain manner, when he said, This is my body. The meaning of Augustine is, when he carried the Sacrament of his body. To this Saunder joineth, the joy that David had by the fruit of corn and wine Ps. 4. where contrariwise, he preferreth the light of God's countenance before all temporal benefits: but it is enough for Saunder, that he nameth corn and wine. Likewise the bread that strengtheneth, and the wine that comforteth the heart of the spiritual man, Ps. 103. the meat that God giveth to them that fear him: these (if we believe Saunder) were prophecies of the Sacrament, in which is neither bread nor wine. But of all other, me think Saunder should have held his peace, of the Goodly chalice that maketh Christians drunk, Ps. 22. seeing he will not suffer Christians, so much as to quench their thirst of that chalice, much less to be made drunk with it. Peradventure it is, because the Papists will keep true Christians sober, that they will not suffer them to drink of that goodly chalice that maketh men drunk. O shameless hypocrites! My soul irketh to rehearse these gross mockeries of God's word. Elias is fed from the air with bread and flesh, and walketh 40. days in the inward 
3. Reg. 17. 3. Reg. 19  strength of a piece of bread. Yet in the first there was bread and flesh, which would make well for the Lutherans; in the other, there was bread and water, which would serve the turn of the Aquarians, if these places were figures of the Sacrament. The wheaten corn Es. 62. which Hieronyme interpreteth to be the corn of the Church, shall no more be given to her enemies, & that vine wherein she hath laboured, shall no more be drunk of strange children, the corn of the elect and the wine that engendereth virgins, as the vulgar text translateth, Zachary Cap. 9 If they pertain to the Sacrament, do rather fight against transubstantiation then for it. As for the bread in jeremy 11. wherein the wood is fastened, is a palpable error of the translator, as I have showed before. The clean Sacrifice of Malachi is to be offered of every one of the faithful, and therefore is not the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass. The bread of Angels was Manna, Psa. 77. which spiritually was the body of Christ, as the Sacramental bread is to us. Last of all Solomon saith and repeateth often: No other thing to be good under the sun, besides eating & drinking with gladness and mirth, where unto Saunder addeth, that the best thing under the sun, may be eaten and drunken, which Solomon neither said nor meant, but that amongst the troubles and vanities of the world, nothing was better for a man, then quietly to enjoy those things, which God giveth, and to lead his life peaceably & justly. Eccle. 3. v. 12. Finally where Saunder concludeth, that the custom of the scripture, in commending so much bread and wine, showeth that the body & blood of Christ should be given under their forms: I say it may more probably be gathered to show, that bread & wine are appointed to be the seals of our spiritual feeding, with the body & blood of Christ. For it is a strange manner of commending, to praise the substance for the only bare shows & accidents thereof. Although the scripture in most of these places cited, intendeth in deed, neither the one conclusion, nor the other▪   

CAP. XIII.  
These words of Christ's supper, Hoc facite, do not only signify, do 
Saunder.  this: but much rather, Make this thing, whereof it followeth, that the body of Christ is commanded to be made.  
Although Hoc facite, might signify nothing, but make 
Fulke.  this thing: yet it would not follow; that the body of Christ is commanded to be made, but rather a Sacrament of his body & blood, which are two several things, which, if he had commanded to be made, he would have said, Haec facite, make these things, & not Hoc facite, make this thing. But when Saunder hath prated his fill of ag●r● & facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the verbs facere & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify to do, which he cannot deny, & therefore will have the verb to signify in this place, both to do & to make, which is most absurd. But S. Paul putteth the matte● out of question, rehearsing the words of Christ pertaining to the cup, saith: This cup is the new Testament in my blood: Hoc facite, do this thing as often as ye shall drink, for the remembrance of me. And telling us what they should do, he addeth a reason of that saying: For as often as ye eat this bread, & drink this cup, you show the Lords death until he come. Behold, what it is to do this thing in remembrance of him. In eating & drinking of this bread & cup, to preach the Lords death. Saunder will reply, that This is general to all the Church: but Christ saying Hoc facite, speaketh only to his Apostles and in them to all priests. I answer, Christ speaketh to his whole Church, neither can it be proved, that the apostles only were present. And yet it followeth not, that every private man hath authority to minister the communion, seeing God hath chosen special persons, for the administration of all public actions in his Church.  
As for the saying of David, memoriam fecit, etc. He hath made a remembrance, is to no purpose, for although he spoke of the sacrament as he doth not, yet there is great difference between making the body of Christ, and making a remembrance of his marvelous works. But Saunder will feign the consent of the old fathers, to prove that Christ's body is made. I will not deny, but the fathers sometime use so to speak, when they understand the sacrament, sign and figure of Christ's body, and not as Saunder doth his real body to be made of bread: yet none of them expoundeth hoc facite, to be of a making, as well as of a doing. First he allegeth the Liturgies of james, Clemens, Basil and Chrysostom, although none of them is his, whose name it beareth, yet are they of some antiquity, and what say they? Forsooth there is a prayer in them, that God would send his holy spirit upon them, and the holy gifts, which may sanctify and make this bread the body of Christ. Hear bread is made the body of Christ. Very good, but by whom? by the priest, or by the holy ghost? If by the holy ghost, than it is not by virtue of these words, Hoc facite, which were not spoken to the holy ghost but to men. I omit, that this prayer in the old Liturgies, is used after the words of consecration rehearsed, by which is given us to understand, that the bread is made the body of Christ, by the holy ghost in the faithful, that receive the bread, and not as it lieth on the table. The like prayer he citeth, out of Cyrillus of jerusalem: That the holy ghost would make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ, in Cate. mist. 5. But this is marvelous, that Saunder saith: he is desired so to do, of the priest: who were not otherwise able to make so great a mystery, if Christ had not commanded him to make this thing: But I reply, if Christ had commanded the priest to make his body, what need he desire another to make it? And in that the holy ghost must make it, it is certain that Christ commanded not the priest to make it. Out of Dionysius the counterfeit Areopagite, he urgeth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a making or working of holy things, which may well stand with making and working of the sacrament, although there be no making of Christ's hody commanded. To lustinus we answered before in the 〈◊〉 circumstance. But Irenaeus hath these words. Quando mixtus calix etc. when the Chalice mixed with water, and the bread being broken, taketh the word of God, than the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ is made. It is made, saith Saunder, Yea verily, but it is one thing to say, the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood is made, another thing to say his natural body is made. But what is the Eucharist with you Papists? the very body and blood of Christ. Then the sense of Irenaeus words must be thi●: the very body and blood of Christ, of the very body and blood of Christ is made: which were more than ridiculous.  
Tertullian against Martion saith, lib. 4. Acceptum panem etc. The bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his own body. Lo saith Saunder, he made the bread his body. Yea sir, but within six words following, he showeth how bread was called his body: namely, because it was a figure of his body. Ambrose de iis qui mysteriis init, saith Cap. 9 Sacramentum etc. This sacrament which thou receivest, is made by the word of Christ. And hoc, quod conficimus, corpus ex virgine est. This thing which we make, is the body taken of the virgin. But let Ambrose expound himself in the words following, soon after, vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: verè ergo Carnis illius sacramentum est, etc. It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified, which was buried: wherefore it is truly a Sacrament of that flesh. Our Lord jesus himself citeth out, This is my body: before the blessing of the heavenly words it is called another kind, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself calleth it his blood, before consecratino it is called another thing, after consecration it is called blood. Likewise when Hierom in Ep. ad Hel. saith that Priests do make the body of Christ with their holy mouth, he meaneth the sacrament of his body, as he saith immediately after, ●hat we are become Christians by them, meaning by the sacrament of baptism ministered by them.  
Against jovinian lib. 2. he saith: that Christ offered wine in typo sanguinis sui, in token of his blood, and the whole sacrament he calleth mysterium, quod in typo suae passi●nis expressit: the mystery which he expressed in the token of h●● passion.  
Out of Chrysostom are cited diverse places, all which are rather against Sanders making, then for it, as these: The priests make the oblation, which Christ gave to his disciples. in 2. Tim. 2. He meaneth the sacrament unproperly called of the old writers, an oblation, or sacrifice. Again: The sacraments are begun and made perfect by the priest, de sacer. lib. 3. Again, Non homo est qui corpus, etc. It is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ, but the same Christ, which was crucified for us etc. Yet Saunder saith, Christ saying. Hoc facite, commanded men to make his body. Aug. Cont. Faust, Manich. lib. 20. cap. 3. saith that our bread & chalice is made mystical unto us, not borne, made I say: Therefore hoc facite signifieth make this thing. I deny the argument, especially understanding this thing for the natural body of Christ. The same Augustine contra Adimantum saith: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. Wherefore if hoc facite be, make that thing, which Christ gave, it is make a sign of his body. The rest of the authorities of Theophilact, Damascene, Euthymius, Anselmus etc. I will not stand to rehearse, because they being late writers, speak often more near unto the Popish heresies: And some of them were rank papists: yet in this matter, for the signification of hoc facite, make this thing, not one of them speaketh directly, as Saunder defendeth. But that the old writers use often the word of making the body of Christ, & the sacrament etc. It proveth not that they understood facere in Christ's words to make one substance of another, although by doing as Christ commanded, such a body as he spoke of, and such a sacrament was made.   

CAP. XIIII.  
What these words do signify, For the remembrance of me: and that they much help, to prove Christ's real presence, 
Saunder.  under the forms of bread and wine.  
To the objection that the remembrance of a man, differeth 
Fulke.  from the man himself: Saunder answereth, that Christ said not only, do this, but also, make this thing, because facere signifieth both to do and to make: and the remembrance of Christ is the showing of his death, as S. Paul teacheth by fact and by making Christ's body under diverse kinds, to show the separation of the body from the soul, the breaking and eating of it in sign, showeth the breaking of it on the cross etc. To this I reply, that facere can have but one signification at one time, and seeing facere in commemorationem is expounded by S. Paul (as Sand, also confesseth) to show the Lords death, which is by doing & not by making, except you mean, the making of the sacrament, hoc facite is still do this thing. In deed, the very ministration of the sacrament according to Christ's in stitution is a preaching of the Lords death: but it followeth not thereof, that the Lord is present, whom the Apostle, by implication saith to be absent: for he addeth, until he come, which were not properly said, if in person he were present, but rather until he be seen, which is there present invisible. To come, is to remove, from one place to another place, where the remover was not before he came. But Saunder saith, the presence of the benefactor, is the best mean to make his good deed remembered, as the scar in a man's face being seen, is the best remembrance of his fighting for his friend's defence. I have often showed the vanity of this kind of reasoning, by which it should follow that Christ left us not the best token of remembrance of his death, because he is not seen, with the print of his wounds. But we must esteem, the best remembrance, according to his wisdom, that hath ordained it, who in all respects no doubt, hath appointed the best that might be for confirmation of our saith. Yet in Sanders example, or any that he can devise, a remembrance will always differ from the thing remembered, as the scarie and the fight, are not all one: so the remembrance of Christ crucified, and Christ crucified himself, are not all one. Neither must Saunder baffu● us, with the remembrance of an action only, for we are to remember the person with his benefits, in or for the remembrance of me, saith Christ, until he come, saith Paul. That a thing may be present, which is not seen, as to a blind man, Saunder needed not to prove, but that a thing may be both absent, and present, in the same substance, visibly or invisibly, that is the matter, which would require Saunder to show his wit, in giving us either a reason or an experience. But the real presence of Christ, saith he, causeth the people to come with due preparation and mortification, which as Basil affirmeth, is a piece of the remembrance, whereas in eating and drinking bread and wine, Christ is so remembered, that sins be neither confessed, nor amendment minded, nor faith exercised, nor charity used, as now a days in England it is handled, by means of the new preachers. What fruitful remembrance of Christ's death, the popish doctrine doth work, we lament to see the remanents, yet in diverse places, where the people are not taught, that spend their time as they were wont to do in popery, when they had received their maker, as they were taught to speak. Contrariwise, where true doctrine and good discipline have prevailed, envy herself may see examples sufficient, to confute the shameless slanders of Saunder. As for the glorious monument of the Mass, which Saunder describeth to show what remembrance of Christ is made therein: he doth well to compare it to a sepulchre, which hath outwardly goodly painting & carning, but inwardly is full of rotten bones & corruption. As good a showing as that and better too, may be made upon a stage with puppets. For what doctrine is there in the mass for the comfort of an afflicted conscience, but dumb shows and idle ceremonies▪ in exposition whereof the popish doctors themselves cannot agree, in which if there were any profitable doctrine, it were hid from the people, as it were with the grave-stone of an unknown tongue. But that which of all other is worst, what remembrance of Christ's death and sacrifice call you that, which sacrilegiously challengeth unto itself that which is singular and proper to the death of Christ? But Saunder having once entered into the allegory of a sepulchre, cannot so lightly leave it, but teacheth, that Christ having ordained the sacrament for a sepulchre, would not make it an hearse or sepulchre without his body lying therein. To this I answer, that sepulchres are to lay in dead carcases, but Christ is risen from death, and ascended into heaven, having left his sacraments as monuments of him that was dead, but now liveth eternally, not as graves wherein his dead body still should remain. But Chrysostom is charged to call Christ's body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase, because it is present, after the same rate, as it was dead in the sepulchre, not without life, but without sensible moving as Epiphanius hath noted.  
I answer, he doth impudently charge Chrysostom to render that reason, why he calleth Christ's body a carcase, in 1. Corint. Homil. 24. because he is present without sensible moving. For there is no such thing in that homily, although there be some excessive and hyperbolical speeches, as that Christ suffereth to be broken in the Sacrament, which was not broken on the cross. And even as false it is that he affirmeth of Epiphanius, for he saith not that Christ is without sensible moving. But speaking of the sacramental bread Hoc ●st rotundae formae & insensibile, quantum ad potentiam. Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est, hoc & hoc. This thing is of round shape, and insensible, as concerning power. And yet by grace he would say: This is mine. This and this. Epiph. Anchor.  
But there followeth a substantial reason, of the Martyrs, which have left their bodies behind them for our comfort, or else some thing equivalent, as Manna, ●n the tomb of Saint john, as the fable of Abdias showeth: Therefore Christ would not be inferior to them, in leaving his body. But Christ himself telleth us, that it is profitable for us, that he depart from the world in his humanity, to prepare us a place in heaven, and to supply his bodily presence, most comfortably with the presence of his holy spirit. joan. 16. It is most comfortable therefore for us, that Christ hath carried his body into heaven, and placed us in heaven with him, Ephe. 2. sending unto us his holy spirit, with all profitable graces from heaven.  
Origen is cited, Homi. 13 in Levitic. Si respicias, etc. If thou look to that remembrance whereof, our Lord said, Do this in the remembrance of me, thou shalt find, that this is the only remembrance which may make GOD merciful to men. Mark (saith Saunder) this propitiatory kind of remembrance. Nay, mark the treachery of Saunder, that cutting off a sentence by the middle, applieth the conclusion to the latter part only, which of the author is meant of the whole matter together. For Origen showing the insufficiency of the shewebreade, to make propitiation thus writeth. Sed si referantur haec ad mysterii magnitudinem, invenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum. Si rede●s ad illum panem qui de caelo descendit, & dat huic mundo vitam: illum panem propositionis, quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius: & si respicias ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit dominus, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem: invenies quod ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium faciat hominibus deum.  
But if these things (namely the ceremony of the show bread) be referred to the greatness of the mystery, thou shalt find that this commemoration hath the effect of great reconciliation. If thou return to that bread which came down from heaven, and giveth life to this world: I say that shewebread, which God hath set forth to be propitiation, through faith in his blood, and if thou look unto that commemoration, of which our Lord saith, do this for the remembrance of me, thou shalt find that this is the only commemoration that maketh God merciful to men. Now mark this propitiatory kind of remembrance, and you shall find it to be neither the mass, nor the communion, but the ceremony of shewebreade, no● barely considered, but with faith applied unto Christ whom it did signify, and exhibit even as the sacrament of his supper doth unto us. I say, mark Master Doctor Saunder, you that are so great a Grammarian, and consider whether Ista commemoratio in the last sentence, be not the same that it is in the first. And mark, whether ille and iste, That and this, can be referred to one and the same commemoration.  
But Augustine or Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum, declareth, how the sacrament is a remembrance of Christ● in rehearsal of which saying, Saunder playeth the same part, that he did before, that is, he omitteth the one half of the discourse, which maketh altogether against transubstantiation. Firmissimè e'en etc. Most steadfastly believe thou, and nothing doubt, that the only begotten son, God the word, being made flesh, hath offered himself for us, to be a sacrifice and oblation of sweet savour unto GOD: to whom with the father and the holy ghost, by the patriarchs, Prophets, & priests in time of the old testament, beasts were sacrificed: and to whom now that is in time of the new testament, with the father and the holy Ghost, with whom he hath one divinity, the holy Catholic Church throughout the whole world, ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine, in faith and charity. For in those carnal sacrifices, there was a figuring of the flesh of Christ, which he himself being without sin, should offer for our sins, and of his blood which he should shed for the remission of our sins, (now beginneth Saunder.) But in this sacrifice, there is thanksgiving and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ which ●e offered for us, and of his blood which the same God ●id shed for us. Therefore in those sacrifices, it was figuratively signified what should be given us: But in this sacrifice, it is evidently showed, what hath now been ●iuen us, in these sacrifices it was before hand showed, ●hat the son of God should be afterward killed for ●icked men: but in this he is already showed to have ●eene already killed for wicked men. That Saunder o●itteth a sentence which is not material, I will not quarrel with him. But now we must mark, saith he, the ●ordes of Fulgentius, of the old sacrifices, figuratè signi●●cabatur, it was figuratively signified: by the new sacrifice, evidenter ostenditur, it is evidently showed. If we had ●ot Christ's body present, the old shadows would show ●is death better than bread & wine, flesh would show flesh ●nd blood would show blood, and killing would show ●illing. In deed it is good to mark the writers words. Shall we then skip over the author's words, which calleth this new sacrifice, whereof he speaketh so much sacrificium panis & vini, the sacrifice of bread and wine? Therefore when he saith, In this sacrifice: I ask, what sacrifice he telleth me, in the sacrifice of bread and wine, is evidently showed, what is already given us? You see Fulgentius meaneth evident showing, otherwise than Saunder doth, which thinketh it cannot be by bread and wine. And as to Sanders reason, that flesh showeth flesh, more evidently than bread: I answer that Fulgentius compareth not so much the evidence of the signs, as the difference of the times, which then was to come, now is past, concerning the passion of Christ. Although that which is showed to be performed already, is more evidently showed, then that which is darkly promised to be performed hereafter. And the doctrine of the Gospel in preaching Christ's death, is a more clear and evident demonstration of his benefits, than the doctrine of the sacrifices was.  
But Saunder compareth the flesh of the old sacrifices, and the bread of the lords supper, as though it were none otherwise showed to be the remembrance of Christ's death in the Church of Christ, than it is in their popish mass: whereas Fulgentius speaketh not of the bare ceremony of the Sacrament, but of the Sacrament with the doctrine there unto belonging, which is tense times a more evident showing of Christ's death then the old sacrifices were. Otherwise he might say, that circumcision was a more evident showing of mortification, and regeneration, than baptism, because that which was done in the member, naturally made for generation, did more evidently show those mysteries, then dipping or sprinkling of water. But as their ceremonies were more sensible demonstrations, so the doctrine of our sacraments, is wonderfully more clear and evident.  
Finally, seeing this writer, intendeth to teach Peter the Deacon most plainly: why doth he call the sacrament the sacrifice of bread and wine, if there be no bread and wine in that holy office or service? for so he taketh the word Sacrifice, and not properly, as his whole exposition doth show. For if he had meant a popish real presence, why doth he not once name any thing sounding there to? if he had meant a propitiatory sacrifice, why doth he so manifestly distinguish it from the sacrifice of Christ, and place it only in thanksgiving and remembrance of Christ crucified? Verily this place, whether it was written by Augustine or Fulgentius, it is utter enemy to transubstantiation, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the popish mass. But what need I bring the fathers, one by one, saith Saunder, sith the whole second Council of Nice, doubted not to say▪ A worshipful Council, of unlearned Idolaters: And what say they? Nemo sanctorum etc. None of the holy Apostles, which are the trumpet of the holy Ghost, either of our glorious fathers, hath said our unbloody sacrifice, which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God, his passion and of his whole conversation, to be an image of that body. If this Council say true, that none of the Apostles have so said, than Saunder is condemned by this Council, for falsifying the Scripture. Heb. 10. when under colour of the Apostles words, he affirmeth the sacrament not to be a shadow of things to come, but to be the image of the thing itself. Lib. 3. Cap. 10. But that all these fathers do lie, when they say none of our fathers, have said the sacrifice to be an image of his body, it might be proved by diverse ancient witnesses: among which I will name Ambrose, Offici. lib. 1. ca 1. who speaking of the sacrament, which he calleth the sacrifice, wherein Christ is offered, saith, Hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate, here in an image, there he is offered in truth, where as an advocate he maketh intercession with the father for us. In this saying, what is the image, but the sacrament? and whereof is it an Image? of his body: where the image is also perfectly distinguished from the truth. Also Theodoret Dialog. calleth the sacrament an image, opor●es imaginis esse exemplar arche●ypum. The chief pattern must be an example of the image, meaning by the pattern, Christ; by the image, the sacrament of his supper.  
Finally to the authority of this second Nicen council, I oppose the Ephesine Council, which determined against images, and affirmed the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to be the only image of his passion, that is left for Christian men to embrace.  
The last Chapter of this book, being entitled by name against that reverend father Master Nowel's challenge, is so plentifully, and substantially confuted by himself, against whom it was written, that I need not once to meddle with it. Only I note that Saunder urging Master Nowell to reply, promiseth a speedy rejoinder, yet Master Nowel's book having been so many years abroad, Sanders rejoinder is not yet come to light.    

The fift Book.  
To the Preface.  
IN this fift Book, he laboureth to pervert, what soever saint Paul hath written of the sacrament, to draw it to his real presence. And that he might be more bold, without all shame to reject the scripture, he would have it to be considered, that Augustine affirmeth Saint Paul to dispute (according to the apostolic manner) more plainly, and rather to speak properly, then figuratively. In deed Augustine affirmeth (as Saunder saith) that the Apostle in these words, He that will not labour, let him not eat, speaketh rather properly, then figuratively: but that all his words of the sacrament, be proper and none figurative, he neither said not thought. And yet he saith, that many things, and almost all things in the Aposto like writings, are after that manner, de Oper. Monac. cap. 2. But Saunder of mere fraud to deceive the ignorant, left out those words, because he would have men think, that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament, or generally of every word that is in the Apostles writing. Wherefore although the Apostle use more commonly to speak properly, then figuratively: yet it followeth not, that speaking of the sacrament, which is afigure in his own nature, he should not speak rather figuratively then properly: and yet God be thanked, he hath spoken so plainly, that all the transubstantiators in the world, shall not be able to clear themselves from his authority.  

CAP. I.  
The real presence of Christ's body and blood, is proved by the 
〈…〉 der.  blessing and communicating of Christ's blood, whereof saint P 〈…〉 speaketh.  
The cup is blessed, that it might be the blood of Christ 
Fulke.  unto all the worthy receivers of it, unto whom only it is the communicating of the blood of Christ. But this proveth no real presence. Yes (saith Saunder) a blessing made by words, worketh that which the words do signify: and therefore, bring me no more (saith he) those paltry examples, I am a 〈…〉 over, I am a vine, the rock was Christ: etc. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing. Hear you not, how this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltry examples? but let that go. When blessing & words are joined (saith he) we are certified, that those words are not figurative, nor only tokens & bare signs: but working & making that which is said, etc. This is the main post of Sanders building, which if it be proved rotten, than his house standeth upon a false ground. In Genesis 49. blessing and words are joined together, and yet most part of the words are figurative. jacob in the name of God, and by his holy spirit, blessing his son juda, saith: juda is a lions whelp▪ Likewise▪ Isachar is a strong ass, Nephtali is an hind let goe● joseph is a fruitful branch, Benjamin is a ravening wolf.  
The like figurative speeches are in the blessings of Moses the man of God, Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating proveth no real presence, nor excludeth figurative speeches. As for only tokens & bare signs, we never acknowledge the Sacraments to be such, but effectual and working signs in them that receive them worthily. But Ambrose is cited, to prove that the blessing of God in the Sacrament, is able to change the nature of things: which we confess: but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation, for in the same place, D● ijs qui mist. Cap. 9 he declareth his meaning jufficiently. Vera utique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepu●ia est: Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clama● Dominus jesus, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified, that was buried: therefore, this is truly a Sacrament of that flesh. Our Lord jesus himself crieth out, This is my body; before the blessing of the heavenly words it is called one kind, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself calleth it his blood, before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called blood.  
But now▪ concerning the word of communicating, Saunder saith that it showeth both the effect wrought by blessing, which is the presence of the blood of Christ, and the final cause why it is made, verily to communicate unto us the merits of Christ's death, where the said blood was shed for the remission of sins. If the chalis after blessing; had no blood in it: how did it communicate to us the blood of Christ? This is Sanders deep divinity. As though the blood of Christ, is not communicated to us in baptism, for the remission of sins, by the merits of Christ's death, where yet the blood of Christ is not really present. But seeing the Apostle saith, that the cup of blessing which we bless, is the communicating of the blood of Christ, it followeth that the wicked, which have no fellowship with Christ, receive nor the blood of Christ in the cup, and consequently, that the blood of Christ is not really present. Yet Chrysostom giving the literal sense, (saith Saunder) of those words, writeth thus, Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia, quod est in chalice, id est quod a latere fluxit, & illius sumus par●icipe●. Of these words this is the meaning: The same which is in the chalice, is that which flowed from the side, and thereof we are partakers. I answer, Chrysostom doth so give the literal sense, that he meaneth the blood of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice: for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth, that Christ suffereth himself to be broken in the Sacrament, which he suffered not on the cross: That we are the self-same body, that we receive. Finally, to show where we are partakers of Christ's body, he saith that by this Sacrament, we are made eagles, and fly up to heaven, or rather above heaven, for where the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered.   

CAP. II.  
The real presence is proved by the name of breaking and communicating. 
Saunder.   
He brabbleth much, of breaking, forgetting that it is 
Fulke.  bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken: but common bread (saith he) cannot have such virtue, that Christ might be known thereby, as he was of the two disciples, in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion. I answer, the Sacrament, although it be very bread, yet is it not common bread, but consecrated, to be a seal of our spiritual feeding by the body of Christ, and therefore as sufficient to testify our communication with Christ, as water in baptism, the cleansing of our souls with his blood.  
In handling the word of communicating, he bringeth in a distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of Chrysostom, which is vain and to no purpose, seeing the Apostle useth both the words for one. For when he had said, we are one bread, and one body, being many, he giveth a reason thereof: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For we all are partakers of one bread. Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ, Saunder saith, it can not be by a bare sign and token. And we say even the same, but by a Sacrament, wherein Christ's body and blood is not really present, it may be. For else how are they that are baptized only, made members of Christ, and have a true communicating of his body and blood? yea, how had all the fathers before Christ's incarnation, this communicating of Christ's body and blood? without which they were no members of Christ, the like I say of raising of our bodies, not by a figure of Christ's body, but by the virtue of his body itself, which virtue if it could not be communicated to our bodies, otherwise then by real presence in the Sacrament, as Saunder falsely dreameth, that Irenaeus should mean, by what means should the resurrection of all them be wrought which have not received the Sacrament? O shameless, and yet most blockheaded kind of reasoning! As for Irenaeus, he proveth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretics, by that they are fed with the body & blood of Christ, in the Sacrament, by their own confession. But he doth not hold it necessary, that who so ever i● partaker of the resurrection of the righteous, must receive the Sacrament, or the natural body of Christ, really present in the Sacrament. For we have communication with God the father & with jesus Christ by faith, as S. joan teacheth, 1. joh. 1. in the Gospel preached and received. And whereas Saunder saith, that S. Irenaeus never dreamt of blood, that should be received from heaven: I demand what is the heavenly part of the Sacrament? When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two things, an earthly thing, and an heavenly thing, lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose that the heavenly thing, can be nothing but the body and blood of Christ, which seeing he affirmeth it to be a heavenly thing, verily it can not be contained in an heavenly vessel, nor be received but from heaven.   

CAP. III.  
The presence of Christ in his supper, is proved by the one bread, 
●ander.  which being received of us, maketh all one body.  
Nay, this union which is spiritual of us and Christ, and of us one with another, invincibly proveth the presence 
●ulk.  of Christ to be spiritual and not carnal: for it is the spirit of God which maketh this union, and not the flesh of Christ, which is one of the terms to be united, and not the mean of the union. For by the spirit of God, we are as verily united unto the body of Christ in baptism, as in the supper: therefore the real presence is not necessary for this uniting. I pass over how ignorantly Saunder abuseth the example of fire converting all things into itself, to show how Christ which is a consuming fire, turneth us into his body, whereas God in respect of his justice, and not of his mercy, is in scripture called a consuming fire. Where he saith, the union can not be made by wheaten bread, I agree with him: but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine, received according to Christ's institution, may testify that union unto us, as well as elemental water in baptism, which is made by the spirit of God. So saith Cyprian, lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum: that Quando etc. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many grains, his body, he signifieth our people which he bore, to be united unto him; and when he calleth wine, which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches, and brought into one, his blood, he signifieth likewise our flock, coupled together by commixion of the multitude, that is joined in one. Cyprian saith, bread and wine made of grains and grapes, and not the form of bread, which was made of grains, & is now no bread, as (Saunder saith) doth represent this union. Neither did any ancient writer say, or think, that by the accidents and not by the substance of bread, and wine, our conjunction is represented.   

CAP. FOUR  
The real presence is proved, by joining together all the former 
Saunder.  words.  
Now must we have a further taste of Saunder his tedious 
Fulke.  Sophistry, in joining the words together. The bread which we break, is the communicating of Christ's body, because we being many, are one bread, and one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Here bread being thrice named (saith he) is put to express one and the same mystery. But that is false: for in the first and last place, bread is put for the earthly matter of the mystery, or sacrament. Against this Saunder replieth, and saith: that if we once take the substance of common bread, to be the thing which is broken, neither is that substance the communicating of Christ's body, nor we are all one material bread.  
I might likewise reason thus: if the bread that is broken, be the substance of the body of Christ, neither is 〈◊〉 the communicating of the body of Christ, neither a●● we the substance of the body of Christ: for the body of Christ and the communicating thereof, differ as much, as the substance of a thing, and the accidents of the same. S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident, ergo it is not the ●●bstance. Wherefore, to avoid all cavilling: the bread which we break, is the communicating of Christ's to●ie spiritually & sacramentally: not really, corporally, & substantially. Against this, Sand●r riseth up and saith, that if to be, is interpreted to signify, then in the next verse, where it is said, we that are many, are one bread, and one body, we are said to be the figure of one bread, because it is one verb and one noun in both places. A simple cause, as though one verb and one noun in diverse places may not be diversly taken. And yet we can not be called one bread, but figuratively, that is like unto one loaf of bread, made one of many grains, & one body, that is like unto one body, consisting of diverse members spiritually united together. But Saunder urgeth us further by the words of breaking and partaking: if the bread broken be material bread (saith he) we partake of the material bread, and yet the bread whereof we partake, is by Saint Paul named one, for seeing it is broken, it is not still one. I answer: we partake all of one material bread, which is either one in lump, or kind, to signify, that we do spiritually communicate with the only body of Christ by faith. As for Sanders cavil, that the bread is not one still, seeing it is broken, is an impudent Sophism. For neither can Christ at one time, and in one respect be called whole and broken. Do not they all eat of one sheep, which eat of it after it is divided in parts? The law commanded one sheep for every household, which was the same Sacrament in spiritual signification and effect, that the one bread and cup is unto us. So we all eat of one material bread, and are spiritually made one mystical bread and body, not so many a● eat the material bread, but so many as eat it worthily by faith. Wherefore the virtue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth, as Saunder would have it seem, but in the mighty working of the spirit of God, who not only in this Sacrament, but in all Sacraments of all times, have wrought the same spiritual union, in all the faithful of all ages, who all make one Church and one body, whereof Christ is the head, and every one of the elect is a member.   

CAP. V.  
How we are one mystical body. 
Sande●   
Saunder maketh two means of our conjunction in 
Fulke.  this mystical body, faith, and the Sacraments. but in very deed, the spirit of God, is the only principal mean which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect, sometimes, not only without the Sacraments, but also without actual faith, as in infants which pertain to God's election. Faith in men of years, is an assurance of this conjunction: The Sacraments are a confirmation of faith. Wherefore the bread which we break, is so a communicating of the mystical body of Christ, as it is an undoubted seal of our faith, by which we are assured of this communication, before we come to the communion: and therefore no necessity of the bodily presence, under the form of bread. For the bread that we break is none otherwise the body of Christ, than we are made one body, and one bread. But we are made one bread and one body, spiritually and sacramentally: therefore the bread is the body of Christ spiritually & sacramentally. Saunder asketh, How could one bread and one body be put to signify one thing, but that in deed bread and body are here in substance the self same thing? I answer, if bread and body be the self same thing, and the self-same thing that the Sacrament is: then is not the Sacrament the natural body of Christ, for we are not made the natural body of Christ, but his mystical body, by partaking of this bread.  
Saunder replieth, that this union is in respect of the nan●rall body of Christ, which I do not deny, but I affirm that the natural body of Christ is communicated unto us by spiritual and heavenly working of his spirit, and not by corporal mingling or joining of the same to our bodies: which also Augustine in serm. ad infants a●●d Bedam, cited by Saunder, doth plainly testify. Nulli est allquatenus, etc. No man ought by any means to doubt, but that he is then made partaker of the body and blood of our Lord: when he is made a member of Christ in baptism, neither is he alienated from the company of that bread and that cup, although before he eat the bread & drink that cup (being placed in the unity of Christ's body) he depart out of this world. For he is not deprived of the partaking and benefit of that Sacrament: for so much as himself hath found that thing, which the Sacrament doth signify, whereas Christ said, except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in you. Out of this place, although it be directly against transubstantiation, yet Saunder is able to prove it. If the body of Christ (saith he) were not really under the form of bread, how could he that is baptized, be partaker of the benefit of this Sacrament? was he made partaker of bread and wine? No forsooth, but he is made in baptism partaker of the body and blood of Christ, which is signified by that bread and cup. So saith Augustine, or who so ever was author of that sermon, and therefore the body of Christ is none otherwise present, in the supper then in baptism.  
But take away that body of Christ (saith Saunder) from the form of bread, and there is no sign of unity in Christ: for every loaf betokeneth unity, but not in Christ. Again, let the substance of bread remain, and signify the mystical body of Christ, which is absent, the union of Christ and his members is signified to be as far asunder, as heaven is distant from earth. I answer, this is poor Sophistry, yet much used by Saunder, disjoining things that ought to be joined together: beside that this wise reason would prove likewise, that baptism is no sign of perfect unity in Christ, because Christ is not really present with the form of water, but the substance of water remaining on earth, and ●he body of Christ to whom we are incorporate, is in heaven. How be it we teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries, such presence I say, as is meet for his glorious majesty, namely by his spirit, which joineth heaven and earth together, and maketh our unity to be perfect, although in nature and place we be never so far distant. And such presence of Christ in his sacraments we acknowledge, as may stand with the truth of his natural body, which if he have not like unto ours in all things, except sin, and such infirmity as our body is subject unto through sin, in vain, should we look for the redemption of our bodies by him, and the conformation of them unto his glorious body.  
The unity that saint Hilary spoke of, we allow. lib. 8. de Trinit. If Christ assumpted truly the flesh of our body, and we take truly under a mystery, the flesh of his body, and by this we shall be one, because the father is in him, and he in us: how is the unity of will affirmed, when the natural property by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect unity?  
In this saying, Hilary reproveth the Arrians, which affirmed that the unity of Christ with his father, was not an unity of nature and substance, but of will only. But seeing the unity that we have with Christ, which is proved by his taking of our flesh truly, and by giving his flesh truly unto us under a mystery in the Sacrament, to be an unity in substance, and not in will only, it is absurd to say, that the unity of Christ and his father should be one lie in will. Now let us see, what poison the Spider sucketh out of this wholesome flower.  
First he noteth, that we truly take the flesh of Christ: I grant under a mystery, as Hilary saith, so many as receive the Sacrament worthily, for else wicked men should be united to Christ, as he is to his father. Secondly, the mystery with Saunder, must be the form of bread, but that I deny, for the form of bread is no secret, but a visible and natural thing. Wherefore, the mystery under which, we truly take the flesh of Christ, must be that secret and wonderful manner, by which Christ doth communicate his flesh unto us. Thirdly, he sayeth, that word Propriety, doth signify a person, because Augustine saith, Christ is a vine by similitude, non per proprie●atem, not by property, where by property, Augustine meaneth properly, and not a person. Wherefore Hilary meaneth, that the natural property of incorporating that meat that is eaten in the Sacrament, is a Sacramento● holy sign of a perfect unity, such as is made between the meat and the eater, and not such an agreement only, as is between friends, that are of one mind. Therefore Saunder doth openly and violently falsify Hilary, where he saith, the natural propriety of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament, interpreting property for person. After he hath thus abused Hilary, he cometh to Augustine, de civitate Dei, lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians, we being many, are one body in Christ: the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of that altar, known to the faithful: where it is showed to her, that in that sacrifice, which he offereth, herself is offered.  
Here Saunder maketh a foolish Dialogism, between Christ and his father reproving him, that he hath gotten such a goodly mystical body, of the bakers making, etc. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharistical sacrifice, offered in the celebration of the lords supper, by the Church, in which the Church herself is offered in a mystery, or holy sign of our conjunction with Christ, which is celebrated in the Sacrament. And so doth Augustine interpret himself Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est sacrum sigr●●m. The visible sacrifice, is a sacrament: that is to say, an holy sign of the invisible sacrifice: which invisible sacrifice, is by him expounded to be mercy, and charity, & yielding up of ourselves unto the obedience ●f God, unto which the real presence of Christ is nei 〈…〉 o necessary, nor at all required, seeing he hath once 〈…〉 feared up a full sacrifice of perpetual effect, for the redemption of all the elect of God.  
His allegory of building, as it is vain, and no argument, but of Sanders own authority, so I pass it over, 〈◊〉 unworthy any answer. But I cannot pass over that 〈◊〉 the conclusion of his fantastical building, he saith, Once 〈…〉 enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa 〈…〉 ament of the altar, &c: and there is no reason, why we ●ould be called his mystical body, or flesh of his flesh, and bone 〈◊〉 his bone. By which saying, he denieth all the patriarchs 〈◊〉 Prophets to be members of Christ, flesh of his flesh, ●nd bone of his bone. But we know, that by Christ's incarnation and communicating of his flesh and blood ●nto all his elect, by his spirit, they with us, and we with ●hem are all members of Christ: flesh of his flesh, and ●one of his bone, without that gross and fantastical presence in the Sacrament: and this communication is sealed unto us, as well by baptism as by the supper. Saunder citeth Irenaeus, Chrysostom, cyril and Theodoret, to prove, that it is the natural flesh and bones of Christ, whereunto we are joined: and further urging the similitude of marriage, whereunto our spiritual conjunction is resembled, not more grossly then filthily, compareth our perfect unity with Christ, unto the act of generation in marriage, about which matter he spendeth two or three leaves. Whereunto I answer, shortly, that we do acknowledge, that we are truly united to the natural body and blood of Christ, which he took of our nature, by such means as is common to all the elect of God, which can be nothing else but his spirit, although the same be assured unto us by faith, & our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God, and especially, by the supper of our Lord, but not only thereby.  
As for the presence of the bodies to be joined, which Saunder requireth, is no natural presence in one proper place, more of Christ's body coming down from heaven into every one of our bodies, then of all our bodies coming from all parts of the world into one. But the body of Christ keeping his own proper place● heaven, as Augustine affirmeth, by his spirit we are all brought up unto him, as the Apostle saith, Eph. 2. not ●e brought down unto us. Finally where Hilary lib. 8. de Trin. saith, He hath mixed the nature of his flesh unto 〈◊〉 under asacrament: he meaneth not of any carr●ll manner of mixture, but such as is, sub Sacramento under a sacrament ●nd mystery, that is by the visible sacrament, taught to be truly, but yet after a spiritual manner, Likewise where Chrysostom saith in joan. 24. It is brought to pass by the meat which Christ hath given us, that we may be converted into that flesh, not only by love but in deed. No Christian man can understand this conversion that is made in deed or in the thing itself, to be carnal, but only spiritual. For what madness were it to say, that we are turned into the natural flesh of Christ, after a corporal manner? To conclude, Saunder cannot prove his fleshly presence, without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words & sense. For thus he citeth him in joan. lib. 10. cap. 15. in deed it is cap. 13. 〈◊〉 mystica benedictio in no●is fiat, nun corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi? For as much as the miss 〈…〉 all blessing is made in us, doth it not make Christ to dwell in us corporally through the communicating of Christ's flesh? Can the mystical blessing make Christ dwell corporally in us, if itself have not Christ's flesh corporally in it? But cyril saith not that the mystical blessing is made in us, but the virtue of the mystical blessing, which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in us. For thus he writeth against the Arrians: Anfo●tesse putat ignotam nobis miss 〈…〉 benedictionis vir 〈…〉 tem esse? Quae cùm in nobis fiat, nun ●●porali●er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi, Christum in nobis habitare? etc. Or else perchance doth he think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown unto us? which when it is wrought in us, doth it not make Christ to dwell in us also corporally by communicating of the flesh of Christ? It is therefore the virtue of the mystical blessing, and not the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, that maketh Christ ●o dwell in us corporally, and by natural paticipation, ●s he saith afterward. By which terms, yet cyril doth not understand, any corporal or natural manner of conjunction, but a true and undoubted uniting of us to the nature and body of Christ, which is performed by the virtue of his holy spirit, after a wonderful and unspeakable manner.  
But it is a dainty matter, that Saunder upon the words of Saint Paul: ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the table of Devils; saith, Our ●ewe brethren, granting the devils a real table, will ●ot allow any such to Christ. What meaneth our old enemy, thus to babble in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Saunder? Do not we allow Christ a real and visible table, whereon the visible sacrament is ministered? If he mean that Christ is really present, at his table, as the devils are at their table, let him advise himself, whether they that are partakers of the devils table, are incorporate to the devil, by eating the devil actually, into their bodies, or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies: if only by the latter, what need have we of his often urged real presence to be made partakers of the lords table, and to be incorporated unto him? When for a sacramental conjunction the ceremony is sufficient, for a true incorporation the spirit of God only bringeth it to pass, both with the sacraments, and without them, in every one of Gods elect which is a member of Christ.   

CPAP. VI.  
The real presence is proved by the example which Saint 
Saunder.  Paul useth concerning the jews and Gentiles.  
First, he would prove, that the Christians have a sacrifice, 
Fulke.  because Saint Paul useth the examples of the sacrifices of the jews and Gentiles: but he seethe not the analogy. S. Paul compareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the jews and Gentiles, but the feast of the sacrifice of the Christians, with the feasts of the sacrifices of the jews & Gentiles. Now the lords supper, is the feast of the only sacrifice of Christ, once offered by him, which maketh us to communicate with his sacrifice, if we receive it worthily, as the feasts of the jewish and idolatrous sacrifices, made the partakers communicate with their sacrifices, & them to whom they are offered. And whereas the Apostle saith, we have an altar whereof they have no power to eat, that serve in the tabernacle: he meaneth that the ceremonial jews, can have no participation of the sacrifice of Christ, except they renounce their jewish observations. Or if you will understand it of such sacrifices of praise, as the Apostle within few lines after speaketh; or of the Lords supper, which is a remembrance of Christ's only sacrifice, as some have done, the cause of the real presence is never a whit helped. Yes (saith Saunder) This then being the meat of our altar, it followeth, that this meat is no less present upon his holy table: then that which the jews or Idolaters did eat, was present a● their sacrifices: but that which they did partake, was really present, and received into their mouths. Therefore, likewise Christ's flesh is really present, and received into our mouths. I deny the minor or assumption of this syllogism. For the devils, whereof the Gentiles did partake, were not really present in the meat which they did eat, nor received into their mouths. The like I say of the altar of the jews, whereof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice. Wherefore this argument may be rightly turned back upon Sanders neck. The devils and the altar, whereof the Gentiles and jews were partakers, were not really present in the meat, nor received into their mouths: therefore the flesh of Christ, whereof the Christrians are partakers, is not really present in the bread, nor received into their mouths.   

CAP. VII.  
The real presence is proved by the kind of showing Christ's ●eath. 
Saunder.   
The showing of Christ's death, whereof S. Paul speaketh (saith 
Fulk.  ●ander) is both by deed and word. The eating of Christ's bo〈…〉 e, and drinking his blood, proveth that he was dead really: for a ●hing is not eaten while it liveth, wherea● the figure of Christ's ●odie eaten, doth show a figurative death past. I answer, the only eating proveth not his death past: for the Sacrament was eaten before he died, which that Theophylact might salve, he saith, that Christ sacrificed himself from ●hat time wherein he delivered his body to his disciples: which is all one, as if he said, that Christ died more than once, directly contrary to the scripture. Heb. 9 But seeing in the determination of God, and in respect of the effect of his death, he was the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, the institution of the Sacrament showed his death before he died, as well as after. But how the blood of Christ was really separated from his body, before his passion, otherwise then in a Sacrament, or mystery, let Saunder tell, if he can. And where he saith, a figure eaten, can show but a figurative death passed, it is utterly false: for the figures of the law, showed not a figurative, but a real death to come. And doth not baptism, where is no real presence, show the lords death, burial, and resurrection truly passed? But Saunder will help the matter, by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus: huius rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus: Because we are delivered by the death of our Lord, being mindful of this thing in eating and drinking, we signify the flesh and blood which were offered for us. Which Saunder thus englisheth: Because we are made free, through the death of our Lord being mindful thereof, we in eating & drinking flesh and blood, show the things that were offered to death for us.  
The example he bringeth out of Damascen, of them that defended the carrying of dead men's bones, because they put them in remembrance of death, is frivolous, & maketh nothing to the purpose: for I will demand of Saunder that urgeth so eagerly the real presence for showing of Christ's death: is the body of Christ in the Sacrament dead or alive? if it be alive, as I am sure he will say, what similitude hath it with the dead bones, and how doth it show his death which is eaten alive, except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine, which have no life? If the death be represented only in outward shows, seeing the body that is received is alive, what is become of Sanders divinity and Logic, that the figures or shows of a dead body cannot show but a figurative and imagined death. As for the argument, a consequentibus, holdeth aswell of the Sacrament, as of the matter thereof, ye eat the Sacrament of Christ crucified, ergo Christ is crucified. But Saunder would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament, and know how we should show him to have died, by only eating it. I answer, by only eating of a living body, we could not know that he had died: therefore doctrine of necessity must be joined with the outward action.  
And further, where he would know, whether Christ did institute this Sacrament, to show his death passed in deed, or past 〈…〉 a bare shadow: I answer, he instituted it before his death, and therefore not so much to show the history of his death to come or passed, as to show the virtue of his death, by which his body was broken, and his blood shed, that it might be meat and drink unto us. And when the Apostle saith, we show the lords death, he meaneth not only the bare story thereof, but the fruit and effect thereof: wherefore Saunder playeth the fool egregiously, to babble so much of Christ's death passed in deed, or in shadows to come: For the old Sacraments, did not only prophecy of an action to be done, but also did confirm the faith of the godly, in the fruits & effects of the passion of Christ. Finally, Chrysostom in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratively, where he saith, when thou feast this body set before thee, say with thyself: This body nailed and beaten, was not overcome of death. This body, the sun seeing crucified, turned away his beams, etc. but he expoundeth himself sufficiently in the same Homily, where he saith, we must be Eagles, & fly into heaven, where the body of Christ that died for us, remaineth. In the same sense, that it is called the body of Christ, he applieth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the body of Christ. But as for transubstantiation, which the Papists would gather out of this place, in many places he showeth, that he acknowledgeth not, and ad Caesarium monachum, he doth expressly deny it.   

CAP. VIII.  
The real presence is proved by the illation which S. Paul maketh 
Saunder.  concerning the unworthy eating & dr 〈…〉ing of evil men.  
The illation proveth no real pr 〈…〉 ce by any consequence 
Fulke.  in the world. He that despitefully abuseth, or negligently contemneth the princes seal offered unto him, offendeth against the majesty & person of the prince, & yet the majesty and person of the prince, is not really present under the forms of parchment and wax. But Saunder saith, the unworthy showing of Christ's death, is the unworthy eating. Who will grant him, that showing of Christ's death, is nothing but eating of the Sacrament? Neither doth S. Paul confess (as Saunder impudently affirmeth) that evil men may have the body & blood of Christ in their mouths. He saith: who so eateth this bread, & drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, (for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the body & blood of Christ, is guilty of the body & blood of Christ, which he despiseth in these mysteries. But it is not bread & wine whereof S. Paul speaketh, because he doth name it, This bread (saith Saunder) For seeing the Pronown This doth show a thing present to some sense or other. S. Paul being absent, could not shew● any thing by any corporal action: than it remaineth, that the thing whereunto (This) doth point, is the body of Christ, whereof he spoke before. This Grammatical Logic, is meet for Papistical divinity. I think there was never man, that set his pen to the paper, that wrote more impudently. What say you, Master doctor Saunder? Doth the pronoun This, always show a thing present to some sense or other? To what sense is the body of Christ present, in that thing, whereof it is said: This is my body? And doth the absence of Saint Paul hinder him to speak of bread in saying, This bread; and further him to speak of Christ's natural body, in saying, this is my body. This learning, Master Saunder, passeth my understanding. What said I, this learning? I know not how to speak, seeing the pronoun This, doth show a thing present to some sense, or other, but the learning, showed in this. Tush, I must say in such kind of reasoning, is an higher matter, then can be conceived by any sense, wit, reason, or understanding. Neither is his sharpness less in answering objections, then in making of arguments. For if you object, that Christ meant the sign of his body: he answereth, that seeing Saint Paul named no sign, as (This) can not point to that which was not named, so it must point only to the thing named before, which was the body of Christ broken for us, therefore this bread, meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance. I blame not Master Saunder, if he will not have. (This) to point to a sign, which was not named, seeing he will not have it point to bread, which with the Pronown This, is named, but to the body of Christ, which in another sentence was named. So that by this bread, he doth not mean this bread, but that body. But seeing he can allow, but one substance present, and that body in the same truth is named, this bread: what reason is there, that the thing which the word of God calleth bread, and all reason and every sense confirmeth to be bread, should not be natural bread, but taken figuratively: and that which is by the word of God only, called the body of Christ, all sense and reason reclaiming, that it should be his natural body must nevertheless be his natural body, and by no means must be thought to be taken figuratively?   

CAP. IX  
The real presence is proved, because unworthy receivers are 
Saunder.  guilty of Christ's body and blood.  
A man is guilty (saith Saunder) either for doing an evil 
Fulke.  deed, or leaving a good deed undone: or doing a good deed after an evil manner, and after the last manner is he guilty, that receiveth unworthily. I will not deal with his division, nor inquire whether every one that receiveth unworthily, doth a good deed after an evil manner. But to the purpose of the real presence: his deed (saith Saunder) is eating, which thing he so really doth, that S. Paul affirmeth him to eat and drink damnation to himself. Why so, Saunder? is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation? if it be, then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and blood of Christ, which are in an other predicament than damnation. But if to eat and drink damnation, be spoken figuratively, where the sense is by eating to deserve damnation, why may not eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, be spoken figuratively, where the sense is by eating and drinking, to be assured of salvation, wrought by the body and blood of Christ? But no man is guilty (saith Saunder) for doing more than he actually doth: therefore the unworthy receiver actually doth eat the body and blood of Christ, whereof he is guilty. I deny the argument, which is a bald petition of the principle, for the unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not for eating and drinking it, but for eatig this bread unworthily, & so contemning the body of Christ, or not discerning the lords body, as the Apostle saith. The antecedent is also false: for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God, for his evil mind, purpose, affection, which often are more than actually he doth. As in the similitude of abusing the Prince's seal, which I used in the Chapter last before. But Saunder exclaimeth against the shameless interpretation of heretics, which imagine that S. Paul said, he that eating by mouth material bread at Christ's ●●●per, refuseth to eat by faith the body of Christ sitting in heaven 〈◊〉 guilty of not eating Christ's body. Who ever heard of such a 〈◊〉? Nay rather, who ever heard of such a lie? For, which of the Sacramentaries (as you call them) doth so interpret S. Paul? Although we say, that he is guilty of Christ's body, which contemneth the same in his Sacrament: and either receiveth it negligently, or else refuseth to receive it contumeliously. For, not only the reprobates receive unworthily, but sometimes also the elect, of whom the Apostle especially speaketh, dissuading them from receiving unworthily, whereby, as by other sins, they pro voke God to punish them, & deserve eternal damnation, if god should deal with them according to their deserts. But to condemn a man for eating the body of Christ, who did eat only the figure of it, seemeth great unjustice to Saunder. And yet the scripture never saith, that any man is condemned for eating the body of Christ, but for eating the Sacrament unworthily, he is guilty of the body & blood of Christ, whereof that is a Sacrament. Tush (saith Saunder) if it were so meant, the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together, then if it were said: he that toucheth unworthily the kings garment, is guilty of murdering his person. I answer, first the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ is a thing that more near concerneth Christ, then the kings garment doth concern the king, & therefore the similitude is nought: but yet he that with contempt toucheth the king's garment, is guilty of contempt of the king's person. And he that of malice, thrusteth his weapon through the kings garment, might justly be guilty of murdering his person: even so, and much rather, as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is less or more, so much is the guiltiness against the Lords person, although his body & blood be no more touched by the contemners, than the king's person, by the abusers of his garment, image, crown, sceptre, seal, or instrument. Saunder after this, professeth, that he is loath to heap up in this place the manifold witnesses of the ancient fathers, concerning that evil men eat Christ's body, whose words he hath partly touched before, li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loath to repeat, that I have so often answered unto him & others: therefore I will only note the places, where 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Saunder, are both rehearsed more at large & fully answered. Namely, Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. ●llud autem, etc. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3: Ca 52. Pri●osius, li. 3. Ca 50 Sedulius, 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. ●i 3. Ca 54, Chrysost: in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin. de baptismo cont. Donatist. li. 5 ca 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo & Theophylact late writers, I will no● sta●d upon their authorities. There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in joan. li. 9 Ca 19 upon these word●, Exivit. conti 〈…〉, judas went out by & by after the supper, etc. which Saunder citeth thus: Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem, n● s●intillam in animo cius accenderit. The a●uell feareth the virtue of the consecration or blessing, lest perhaps it might have kindled a spark of grace, or of repentance in his mind. But the words of cyril, howsoever it bathe pleased M. Saunder to mangle them, are thus: Timet, ut credo, diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur: & quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat, hac de causa festinat & impellit. Nam etiam judam cùm post panem omnino se paraverit, tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens, ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit, ac inde illuminaverit, & ad meliora retraxerit, magna praecipitem agit ecleritate. The devil, as I think, feareth, lest by tarrying place might be given to repentance, & the man thinking better, might deliver his mind, as it were from drunkenness. For this cause he maketh haste & driveth forward. For with great celerity, he driveth even judas headlong, when after the bread, he had altogether prepared himself, fearing both the delay, and the virtue of the blessing, lest it hath kindled a spark in his mind, and thereof hath lightened him, and drawn him to better things. This saying of Cyrillus doth no less differ in sense and understanding from Sanders slanderous report of him, than it doth in form & context of words, from that which Saunder affirmeth to be his saying. For cyril plainly caleth it bread which judas had received. Again it was the virtue of the blessing, and not the presence of the body of Christ, which the devil feared. What is this for the real presence?   

ACP. X.  
The real presence is proved by the kind of discerning 〈◊〉 
Saunder  lords body.  
First, he laboureth to prove that the fault of the Corinthians, 
Fulke.  was not malicious contempt of Christ, but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion. Then he reasoneth thus: because S. Paul chargeth them to be guilty, not only of Christ's worship and name, but also of his own body and blood, with which fault he never burdened any other than the unworthy receivers, or the jews that laid injurious hands upon Christ at his death, it must needs be, that such a communicant receiveth Christ's natural body. I answer, not only they are guilty of Christ's body and blood, which receive the communion unworthily, and which laid violent hands on Christ's person, but even they also, that crucify the son of GOD again, of whom the Apostle speaketh, Heb. 6. verse. 6. and corrupt the blood of his Testament, by which they are sanctified wholly. Heb. 10. vers. 29. Neither are they burdened with a greater fault, than they commit, which unworthily receiving the pledge of Christ's presence, are said to offend against Christ himself. But Saunder urgeth the argument of discerning further: because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference between Christ's body and all other meats or creatures in the world, it is evident, that none other mea●e or creature is present besides the body of Christ. I deny the argument, which followeth as this. He that despiseth circumcision, hath broken the covenant of God, as God saith Gen. 17: ergo circumcision, is nothing but the covenant of God, and not an outward seal and sign thereof. He that despiseth Baptism, despiseth the blood of Christ, and the spirit of God, by which baptism is sanctified: therefore the water of baptism is the blood of Christ or the holy Ghost really. Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament, which is called, and to the worthy receiver is in 〈…〉 ede the body and blood of Christ after a certain ma 〈…〉 r, from common meat, is guilty of the body and 〈…〉 oud of Christ, and yet no necessity of real presence 〈…〉 ereby enforced.  
Last of all Chrysostom is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. 〈…〉 at the receiver need to consider nothing else, but 〈…〉 ho is set forth, and the greatness of the things set 〈…〉 rth. Therefore (saith Saunder) it is not bread and 〈…〉 in that is set forth, but the body and blood of Christ. 〈◊〉 answer the body and blood of Christ is set forth, by 〈…〉 e visible creatures of bread and wine. Neither did 〈…〉 hrysostome otherwise teach, in all his writings, although entreating of so high a mystery, he speaketh many times figuratively and hyperbolically. as Hom. 6. he saith, The Church in which the sacraments are ministered, is the place of Angels, the place of Archangels, the palace of heaven, heaven itself. Name & hîc 〈…〉 oelum dubitas? Mensam istam vide, cuius gratia constituta sit & quapropter. for dost thou doubt that heaven is here? behold this table, for whose cause and wherefore it is set.   

CAP. XI.  
No figure which is not in substance Christ's body, can make 
Saunder.  any man by eating it negligently, guilty of Christ's natural body.  
Saunder confesseth, that when a man by wilful contempt 
Fulke.  doth break or defile the kings image, it is reputed all one, as if he had stricken the prince himself, not because the deed is one, but because his will is uttered no less in abusing the sign, then if he had injuriously touched the prince himself. But he saith, this similitude is not like, because saint Paul maketh his argument rather upon the real fact itself, then upon the will or mind of the doer. I answer, there is no word in saint Paul, to prove that he maketh his argument upon the real fact, which is eating and drinking, but upon eating and drinking unworthily, which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords body. Secondly Saunder objecteth that the Apostle speaketh not, of wilful contempt, but of negligent doing. I answer, the argument holdeth as well or neglecting, as of contemning, that which Ch 〈…〉 commanded to be regarded, although it be a greater fault to contemn, then to neglect.  
Secondarily (saith Saunder) they that say the sign, image, or figure of Christ's body is abused, must show wherein that figure doth consist, and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images, external & internal etc. But I will plainly show him wherein the figure doth consist: not that bread and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth, in form or shape, are like to Christ's body and blood, but in the use and end of them, which is to nourish bodily, as the body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us, is made spiritual meat and drink to feed and nourish us spiritually, of which spiritual feeding and nourishing, the bread and wine, being sanctified to that use, are not a bare, naked or empty sign, Image, or figure, but a fuil perfect, and effectual seal, confirmation and assurance to as many as receive the same bread and wine, being now made so high a sacrament worthily. Neither is there any other presence or Christ's natural body required therein them in baptism of his body and blood, where unto we are incorporated thereby, then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament, namely, then in Manna, or the showbread: of which Saunder speaketh. But it is a thing never heard of (saith Saunder) that either Manna or the show bread unworthily eaten, or baptism unworthily taken made any man guilty of Christ's own body and blood: therefore there is some other substante under the forms of bread and wine, than was in Manna &c: Although the scripture saith not in so many words, that he that did eat Manna unworthily, was guilty of the body of Christ, yet in effect it saith the same, and the same by necessary consequence, may be inferred. He that did eat the same spiritual meat, that we do, unworthily, was so guilty: the fathers did eat the same spiritual meat unworthily, for God was not pleased ●ith them, (as the Apostole saith) therefore they were guile 〈…〉 e of the body and blood of Christ. If Saunder will reply ●nd say, it was not the same that we eat and drink: First 〈◊〉 Paul saith expressly, the rock was Christ, of whom we 〈…〉 te and drink. S. Augustine de utilitate poenitentioe, cap. 2. ●aith expressly, they did eat the same spiritual meat that 〈…〉 ve do, for Manna was Christ unto them. cyril in joan. 〈…〉 b 3. cap. 34. saith, that Christ by the figure of Manna was given unto those old fathers. The like by Analogy, is proved of all other sacraments. But Saunder replieth, the ●ewes must then have prepared & examined themselves ●uerie day, which is not read of: who doubteth, but the Godly jews so did, that received Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rock? and it is read, that they which did not receive those sacraments worthily, were therefore overthrown in the wilderness. Why then (saith Saunder) if it were so, it had required more perfection in the law, than now is used forsomuch as we receive our maker perhaps but once a year, and surely at the most but once a day, whereas they did eat Manna as often as hunger provoked, for 40. years. The Law which is spiritual, requireth more perfection than any man can perform: but to argue what perfection is required of us by that we use corruptly, is as gross a fault in reasoning, as theirs was in unworthy receiving. The scripture requireth oftener communicating then once a year. In the primitive Church they received every day, & so often they were to prepare and examine themselves. And what if I say, that every day, although a man do not receive, he ought to use as great preparation and examination of himself, as when he doth receive? But we receive but once a day, at the most (saith he,) verily they received oftener, because it was not only a spiritual meat, but a bodily meat also necessary for the maintenance of their lives, as our Sacrament is not, we may eat bread which is not the Sacrament, so could not they at that time. How be it, when so ever we come into the presence of God to pray, which we ought to do more than once a day, I would know, what preparation or examination, is necessary for them that receive the Sacrament (excepting the only relation of receiving) but a Christian man is bound to use the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers unto God. I speak not (as Saunder doth) how unreverently men use to pray, but how they ought to behave themselves in the sight of God.   

CAP. XII.  
The real presence of Christ's body is confirmed by the oft repeating 
Saunder.  of the name of flesh, body, blood, eating, drinking, and such like words.  
And why is not the real presence of bread and wine 
Fulke.  proved by the oft repeating the names of bread and cup, and the fruit of the vine: as for eating and drinking, are more proper for bread and wine, then for the body and blood of Christ, of which they cannot be said, but figuratively: especially, seeing you hold, that the blood of Christ in the cup, is not really separated from his body, how can you properly say, that the blood of Christ is drunk, when only the body with the blood in it, is swallowed down the throat? Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament bread at the least six times, after consecration. As for the often repetition of flesh and blood, in the 6. of saint john, pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper. But let us see master Sanders authorities, for this argument of repetition. First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostom, saith: Hoc dixit, This he said, confirming that he spoke not obscurely, or parabolically. Yea sir, but Euthymius saith otherwise, if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole: Caro mea verè est cibus. Verus est cibus sive aptissimus, utpote animam qu● propriissima hominis pars est nutriens. Et similiter de sanguine. Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod non aenigmaticè, neque parabolicè loqueretur. My flesh is meat in deed, it is true meat or most apt meat, as which nourisheth the soul, which is the most proper part of man. And likewise of the blood. Or else he said this confirming that he spoke not obscurely or in parable. Chrysostom in joan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat: caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus? Aut quod is est verus cibus, qui saluat animam: aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet, ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur. What meaneth this: my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed? Either that he is the true meat, that saveth the soul: or else that he might confirm them in that was said before, lest they should think that he had spoken darkly in parables. By both these places, which are disjunctive sentences, it is plain that the flesh and blood of Christ is meat to feed the soul, which must needs be spiritually, because the soul cannot eat carnally, and then you see how plain and without parable the speech of Christ is to be taken.  
Next these are cited Oecumenius in. 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait (corporis & sanguinis domini) manifestat, quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur, sed ipse dominus & factor omnium: ut videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat. By this that he often saith (of the body and blood of our Lord) he showeth that he which is offered, is not a bare man, but the Lord himself, and maker of all things: to the end verily that he might put them in a terror by these things. This writer affirmeth nothing, but that the bread, and cup is not the sacrament of a bare man, but of him that is both God and man: therefore not the bare substance of bread (saith Saunder.) I confess, but a Sacrament of the flesh and blood of the son God.  
Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism. lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simulque horribilius etc. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently, and more fearfully, the condemnation, by repetition. What is this to the real presence? But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith: Neque enim etc. For it is not said in one place or shortly, so that it may be drawn or perverted into another meaning by the overthwarting of never so subtle a Sophist. But what, I pray you? that men ought to work with their hands. Doth not this make much for the real presence, confirmed by oft repeating of the names of body and blood? when bread and cup etc. be as often repeated?  
But to conclude, cyril in joan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense (saith Saunder) Non obdurescamus etc. By Master Sanders leave, I will repeat the words of Cyrillus, a little more at large, that we may see in what sense he writeth. Quapropter salvator varia oratione, mo●● aenigmaticè atque obscurè, modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem judaeis proposuit, ●vt excusari nequeant, si resilierint: sed mali malè perdentur, tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes. Iterum igitur planè clamat: Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi. Illa figura imago umbráque solùm fuit. Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum: Ego sum panis vivus: si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum. Non obdurese v●●● igitur, toties veritatem a Christo audientes. Non est enin. ambigendum, quin summa supplicia subiucri sint, qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt. Wherefore our saviour by diverse kinds of speech, sometimes enigmatically and obscurely, sometimes clearly and plainly, hath set forth the same thing unto the jews, so that they cannot be excused if they start back: but being evil men, might be destroyed evilly, as they that with their own hand thrust a sword into their own soul. Therefore he crieth out again plainly: I am the bread which came down from heaven. That was a figure, image, and shadow only. Hear you this which is clearly spoken: I am the living bread, if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Therefore let us not harden ourselves, hearing the truth so oft of Christ. For it is not to be doubted, but they shall suffer most extreme pains, who receive not these things so often repeated of Christ.  
Out of this place first I note, that sometimes Christ spoke in this Chapter obscurely, and figuratively, contrary to that which Saunder before would seem to affirm out of Euthymius and Chrysostom. Secondly, that Cyrillus speaketh not of the words, whose repetition Saunder urgeth, but of the matter of our spiritual feeding by Christ only, often repeated in the sixth of john. thirdly that Cyrillus understandeth the matter of this Chapter to be all one, contrary to that which Saunder before hath stoutly defended, that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament, until he come to that saying, And the bread which I will give, is my flesh.  
Fourthly, that cyril affirmeth Christ to have been the bread of life which was received of the godly Fathers, under the figure of Manna: And last of all, that the words following, And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, cyril understandeth of the death of Christ, and not of the sacrament, for which Saunder strove so much in the third Book.  
The saying of Cyrillus upon the words of Christ: And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, etc. is in the 12. Chapter of the same Book. Morior inquit pro omnibus, ut per me ipsum omnes vivificem, & caro mea omnium redemptio fiat: morietur enim mors morte mea, & simul mecum natura hominum resurget. I die saith he for all men, that by myself I may give life to all, and my flesh may be made a ransom of all: For death shall die by my death, and the nature of men shall rise again together with me. You may now judge in what sense Cyrillus writeth, and how far the sense of Saunder is from the meaning of Cyrillus.    

The sixth Book.  
To the Preface.  
BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doth most of all convince the real presence, Saunder pretendeth that he hath appointed this book severally to prove that point, whereas in deed he laboureth for the most part to prove the adoration by the presence, which is a beggarly craving of the principle, or that which is in question.  

CAP. I.  
The adoration of Christ's body is proved out of the P●ph●▪ dan 〈…〉 id in the 21. Psalm. 
Saunder.   
The adoration of Christ's body, is no question between us, but whether the sacrament is to be adored, that 
Fulke.  thereby the real presence might be proved. The place of the Psalm 22. after the Hebrews, is this, verse 26. I will pay my vows before them that fear him. The poor or meek shall eat, and be satisfied, they shall praise the Lord seeking him: your soul shall live for ever. All the ends of the earth shall remember, and be converted unto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselves before thee. Because the kingdom is the Lords, and he hath dominion among the Gentiles. All that be fat on the earth, shall eat, and bow down themselves, before him they shall all fall down, which descend into the dust. In this prophetical Psalm Christ proseth three things, that the faithful shall be said and nourished by him, that they shall praise God and that they shall have eternal life. But for as much, as Christ nourisheth the faithful, otherwise then by the sacram●t, it is great violence to draw this prophecy, only, or chief to the sacrament, as Saunder doth. As for adoration of the sacrament, here is no colour for it. Christ promiseth plainly, that such as he hath redeemed shall praise jehova, shall worship him, fall down before him: but of worshipping the meat whereof they eat and are satisfied, there is no mention in the world. I pass over his fantastical application of the words of the Psalm, and meddle only with that which is pertinent to the question. But the kingdom of God requireth an invisible presence (saith Saunder) concerning the person of the king. But yet visible concerning the forms of bread & wine, to the end his mebers may know where to worship him. And must we have the visible forms of bread and wine, that we may know where to worship him? Why, do we not know, that he is ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the father? shall we not worship him sitting at the right hand of god in heaven? S. Paul willeth us to seek those things that are above, where Christ is, and not those things that are on earth, because Christ is in heaven. Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalm, to be meant of the sacrament, is not of Sanders invention, we must hear the judgement of the elder writers. And first he beginneth with Jerome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi: The vows of Christ are his nativity, and passion: the vows of the church are good works: or else I will offer the mystery of my body and blood, with them who celebrate those things in his fear. Although this writer refer the text partly to the mystery of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, yet hath he no word of adoration of the Sacrament: but referreth it altogether to God and Christ, beside that his exposition far differeth from Sanders explication. The like sayings he allegeth out of Augustine, Cassiodorus, Beda, & Euthymius, all which affirm this prophesy of eating, to pertain to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament, although not only to it. But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament? Forsooth (saith Saunder) manducaverunt & adoraverunt, are both referred to one thing, they have eaten the Sacrament, therefore they have adored the Sacrament. I deny the mayor: the text is plain, that they have adored, bowed, and fallen down to God, & not to that which they have eaten. If I say, Saunder hath eaten & given thanks: do I mean that he hath given thanks to his meat, or to him that gave him meat? This is a miserable argument. But S. Augustine doth fortify it. For he saith upon that Psalm, Even the rich of the earth have eaten the body of the lowliness of their Lord, neither are they so filled as y● poor, even unto imitation, sed tamen adoraverunt, but yet they have adored. I hear that they have worshipped, but I hear not that they have worshipped or adored the Sacrament. And if you say they have worshipped or adored the body of their Lord's humility: how prove you, that they worshipped the same really present in the Sacrament? Or that the Sacrament may be called the body of the lords humility? If this will not serve, Augustine is more plain in Ep. 120. ad Honora●●m, ca 27. Suprà dictum est, etc. It was 〈◊〉 before, the poor shall eat & be filled. But here it is said, all the rich of the earth have eaten & have adored. For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his body & blood. But they adore only, & be not filled also, because they follow not. For although they eat Christ the poor man, yet they disdain to be poor. And again, because God hath raised him from the dead, & hath given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of jesus every knee should be bowed, of things heavenly, earthly, & under the earth. They also moved with the fame of his highness, & with the glory of his name, (which glory is spread round about in the Church) they come themselves to the table, they eat & adore, but yet they are not filled, because they do not hunger & thirst after righteousness. All this while I hear adoring of Christ, but not of the Sacrament, nor of the body of Christ really present in the Sacrament. I would have all men that eat the Sacrament, not only to eat, but also adore & give thanks, not to the Sacrament, but to him that spiritually feedeth us by the Sacrament. But ●eda expoundeth the adoring thus: Adorabunt, quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accident. They shall adore, because they shall come with a certain outward reverence or worshipping. Although Beda lived in a corrupt time, yet the Sacrament in his time was not worshipped. Therefore, he speaketh of a certain outward reverence, that men used in coming to the lords table, which is used of all them that worship not the Sacrament. For if Beda had meant as Saunder would have him, he should not have said, a certain external worshipping, but with all honour & worship, both inward and outward, which we must use, when we come to worship Christ himself.   

CAP. II.  
The adoration of Christ's body is proved again out of the Prophet 
Saunder.  David, Psal. 98.  
The Latin text is, Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, & 〈◊〉 
Fulke.  scabellum pedum eius, quoniam sanctum est. Exalt the Lord our God, & worship his footstool, because it is holy. Saunder confesseth, the Hebrew readeth: because he is holy. So might he have confessed, that the Hebrew readeth: worship at the stool of his feet, which is at the ark, tabernacle, or temple which is called by David. 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstool of God's feet. And that the sense of this verse is all one with the last verse of the same Psalm, which even the vulgar Latin interpreter readeth thus: Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, & adorate in monte sancto eius: quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster. Exalt ye the Lord our God, & worship in his holy mountain: because the Lord our God is holy. In both verses is one word of worshipping, the same preposition before the word, that signifieth his footstool, and that word which signifieth his hill or mountain. Therefore the Latin interpreter should not have said worship his foot stool, but worship in or at his footstool, as he saith, in or at his holy hill. Wherefore, the Prophet David in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the body of Christ any way, if his own words, rather than the words of the translator be considered. Wherefore the foundation of this worship of the Sacrament, is utterly overthrown. But Saunder saith, that the Ark & the temple being the footstool of God, toward which, the jews did pray, did signify, that the flesh of Christ should be adored, not only in heaven, but also in the Sacrament, which is the ark, temple, & vessel, containing the self same substance of Manna, which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. Did I not tell you in the preface, that he would not prove the presence by the adoration, but the adoration by the presence, which is all in question? who shall grant that the Sacrament is such an ark, temple, & vessel, as he affirmeth? But many of the old fathers, understood the footestoose for the body or flesh of Christ, affirming that it was to be worshipped. To this I answer, first, they were all deceived in their ground of scripture, that so took the footstool. Secondly, some of them affirming the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped, had no relation unto the sacrament. Thirdly, they that said it was to be worshipped in the sacrament, understood worshipping otherwise then the Papists teach & practise, namely, for reverencing of Christ's flesh in the mysteries, without any imagination of carnal presence. Hierom, the first author cited by Saunder, for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith, There be many opinions of the ●ootstole, what it should be. But here the Prophet meaneth our lords body, wherein the majesty of the divine nature standeth as it were on a footstool.  
This is spoken of the humanity of Christ, without any respect unto the Sacrament, therefore it followeth: Quid autem adorari debeat, etc. And that he ought to be adored: the Apostles taught at his ascension, when they returned unto jerusalem worshipping. But also these things are to be referred to our Lords cross and to his holy soul. The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum, etc. By the footstool, the earth is understanded, by the earth the flesh of Christ: which at this day also we adore in the mysteries: which the Apostles as we have said before, did adore in our Lord jesus: for Christ is not divided, but one. Here (saith Ambrose) the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries: he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honoured or contemned in the poor, in his Ministers, in Magistrates, in his word, in all his creatures: It followeth not, that Christ is really present in the poor, in his Ministers, in Magistrates, in his word, in all his creatures. Neither can it be proved, that by mysteries, Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christ's supper. Again when he saith, we worship the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, which the Apostles worshipped in jesus Christ, it followeth, that the mysteries and jesus Christ are diverse things, and not all one. But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries, that was worshipped in his proper person, it followeth as Ambrose saith, that Christ is one and not divided. Thirdly, is cited Augustine, in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstool to be the flesh of Christ, which he hath given us to be eaten to salvation, saith: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit, etc. And no man eateth that flesh, except he have first adored it, it is found out, how such a footstool of our Lords may be adored, and that we should not only offend in adoring, but we should sin in not adoring. Here Augustine saith, the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten: and who doubteth of that? For he that honoureth not Christ come in the flesh, shall never be nourished by his flesh and blood. But Augustine is so far of, to teach us that Christ's flesh is to be adored, as really present in the Sacrament, that he doth expressly deny, his natural body and blood to be eaten and drunken, for thus he saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ: as even Saunder reporteth: ye shall not eat this body, which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed, who shall crucify me. I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, being understood spiritually it will make you live. Although it must needs be celebrated visibly, it must be understanded invisibly. How think you Saunder avoideth the force of this place? First he saith, the last words must agree with the first, and then both are true. Very well, he spoke before of a spiritual manner of presence, and eating of Christ in the Sacrament, because he now denieth the corporal presence. Secondly he answereth, that Augustine speaketh of the visible form, and not of the substance of the body of Christ, which is invisible. O abominable impudence. Augustine saith, you shall not eat this body, nor drink that blood. Saunder saith: These words body and blood, are taken for visible forms, and not for the substance. ●●r Christ took not that greatness and quantity of flesh of his mother, wherein he walked: for his greatness increased from the state of an infant, to the state of a perfect man. But I pray thee Saunder, if with shamefastness thou hast not lost all thy wit, tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant, or in the state of a perfect man? Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified, and that blood which was shed, when he was crucified, which body also he deemeth, that the Church hath present upon earth. in joan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible form of blood which was shed on the cross, or the very substance of his blood. If thou say it was the very substance, which thou must say, except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee, than it was the very substance of his blood, which Augustine denieth to be drunken in the Sacrament.  
But Augustine (saith Saunder) was so fully persuaded, that the flesh of Christ was to be adored under the form of bread, after consecration, that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it, not as common flesh, but as the flesh of God, for whose sake we adore it. Cù●●d ●erram quamlibet, etc. when thou bowest thyself, or fallest down before any earth look not upon is as earth, but look upon that holy one whose footstool it is, which thou adorest, for thou adorest for his sake. Now (saith Saunder) what is it to say, before any earth? doubtless before any host consecrated, etc.  
Doubtless this is a clearkly interpretation, that quae●ibet terra, any earth, or, every earth, that a m●n doth bow unto, is a consecrated host. Not only the flesh of Christ is earth to be worshipped, but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to be worshipped, in respect of whom Augustine saith, cùm ad terram, etc. when thou bowest down to any earth, consider God and not man, whom thou worshippest in that man, even as in worshipping the flesh of Christ, we stay not in his flesh, but ascend unto his spirit: for thus his words run, Numquid autem caro vi●ificat? What, doth the flesh give life? Our Lord himself hath said, when he spoke of the commending of the same earth, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Ideo & ad terram quālibe● cùm te incli●as, etc. Therefore also, when thou bowest, and castest down thyself unto any earth whatsoever, behold it not as earth, but that holy one whose footstool that is, which thou adorest, for thou adorest for his sake: Therefore here also he hath added: worship his footstool, because it is holy, etc. The conjunction, also, which Saunder hath craftily suppressed, declareth, that Augustine speaketh, not only of worshipping the flesh of Christ, as the footstool of God, but also of worship given to any other earth, which must wholly be referred to God. You see how invincibly it is proved, that catholic men in S. Augustine's time, used to bow down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar, as San 〈…〉 no no more untruly then ridiculously doth vaunt and 〈…〉 gge, upon the worshipping of any earth.   

CAP. III.  
It is proved out of the Prophets, that it can be no Idolatry to 
Saunder.  〈…〉 ship the body & blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar.  
Saunder first presupposeth the body and blood of Christ 
Fulke.  〈…〉 be really present in the Sacrament, and then he deafen 〈…〉 h it is no Idolatry to worship it. But this is contra 〈…〉 to his promise, for he undertook to prove, the real 〈…〉ence by the adoration, that is dew to the Sacrament, 〈…〉 d not the adoration by the real presence. But it is a wondered absurdity with him, to say that it is Idolatry. 〈◊〉 worship with godly honour, the body and blood of ●hrist in the Sacrament of the altar. First because this say 〈…〉 g presupposeth external Idols not to have been taken away by 〈…〉 e coming of Christ: which is against the express word of God. If all external Idols had been taken away, by the coming of Christ, the Apostles would not so seriously have warned men to beware of all Idolatry, 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols, act. 15. 1. john. 5. etc. Secondly, it presupposeth (saith he) that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians, by Public doctrine and universal practice in open Churches, etc. Not by true Christians, but by false Christians, the times of Antichrist, as was prophesied Apo. ●3. & 9 Thirdly, it presupposeth, that Christ gave occasion by his own word, that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread, etc. Christ gave none occasion to worship bread, more than to worship a door, or a vine tree. Last of all, it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping, and also to teach that he is Antichrist. Nothing more agreeable to reason, then that Antichrist should set up an Idol, that he himself by it might aspire to the greatest honour. But Antichrist (saith Saunder) is an adversary, and setteth himself against Christ, but the Pope calleth himself the vicar of Christ, and the servant of servants. Under the colour of these titles, he arrogateth to himself power and honour above Christ, to give pardon in papers sealed with lead, a poena & culpa, when he teacheth, that the pardon that Christ sealed with his blood, is only a culpa, from the fault, but not from the punishment. And yet the Popein his Canon law, refuseth not to be called God above all Gods.  
Secondly, Antichrist advanceth himself above all that i● 〈…〉 shipped as God, therefore he will not how to an external Id 〈…〉 cometh of superstition and pusillanimity. I answer, 〈◊〉 Pope although he stoop not very low to the sacrament of the Altar, which is carried before him on a pal 〈…〉, when he himself is carried on men's shoulders: yet he pretendeth a familiar kind of reverence, not of super 〈…〉 on, but of subtlety and fraud, to cover his pride by hypocrisy, that with deceit of unrighteousness, he may prevail in them that perish. 2. Thess. 2.  
Thirdly, Antichrist shall show false signs and wonders to deceive wicked men by. So hath the Pope & his members do● an infinite number, whereof the Legends, & other lew●● books are stuffed full. And even Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of devils.  
Fourthly, Antichrist is advanced above all idols, th' 〈…〉 shall set up no idol but himself, therefore, if the Pope set 〈◊〉 idol, he is not antichrist. I answer, the Pope hath set up 〈◊〉 idols but to advance himself above them all. For although he hath set up the idolatry of the Sacramens, calling it god & man; yet what papist thinketh it not 〈◊〉 meritorious to worship & kisle the Pope's feet at Ro●●, then to worship the sacrament daily in his own pa 〈…〉 church? What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa 〈…〉 of the Popes, then in any thing that he looketh to receive from the sacrament of the altar? & wherefore this & an hundred such like matters, but that the Pope hath advauced them 〈…〉 above the idols, which he himself hath made, & commanded men to worship, not for Christ's honour, but for his own devilish advancement. As for the profession of the Pope, to worship Christ in the Sacrament, in the sign of the cross, in praying to his saints, by which Sand●r world discharge him from antichristianity, is nothing el●● but hypocrisy in him, which hath no religion, as it hath openly been proved by a number of them. john the 〈◊〉. being condemned for denying the immort 〈…〉 of the ●●ale: Other Popes of our time, calling the Gospel a fable of Christ, requiring there pork in despite of God, & openly blaspheming his majesty, etc.  
As for the Godhead of Christ, and honour due to his manhood in respect of the unity of person, is needless ●bo● to prove the adoration of the Sacrament, except ●s adunation to the sacrament, in one person be first hooved.  
But Esay saith, Chap. 2. The Lord above shall be exalted in that day, and Idols shall be utterly destroi●d. It is very true, where the Lord is exalted, but that 〈◊〉 not in all places of the world, neither ever was, but only where God hath set up his true Church, which is ●is kingdom. Therefore all the prophecies cited by ●ander: jer. 30. Ez. 30. Mich. 1. Zoph. 2. Zac. 13. Psa. 9 & an ●undreth more that are of the abolishing of Idols and idolatry, are to be understood abolishing them from the true kingdom & Church of Christ, not out of all the world, ●r out of the kingdom of Antichrist, and company of ●alse Christians, as Saunder would bear fools in hand. And I marvel, if any be so foolish to be persuaded, that there can be no Idolatry, committed in worshipping that for God and Christ, which is a mere creature. But Saint Augustin writeth: in lib. de divin. d●m. That it was forespoken of the Prophets, that the Gentiles should worship one God, the false Gods, whom they worshipped before, being cast out. S. Aug. saith truly of the Gentiles, they are become true Christians. But were all the Gentiles such from the coming of Christ unto S. Augustine's time, which was 400. years? or be all the gentiles such at this day? yea, were there not of them that were called Christians, worshippers of Images in S. Augustine's time? Doth he not write De moribus eccl. Cath. lib. 1. Chap. ●4. of false Christians: Novimultos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, I know there are many of them which are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures. See then if Saunder have any shame to cite Augustine, for his purpose, which is, that no Idolatry can be committed since Christ's time, especially of them that are called Christians. Beside Augustine, he abuseth the name of Athanasius de in●ar. verb. Vbi nominatur etc. Where Christ or his faith is named, thence all Idolatry is driven, & the deceitful guiles of the devil are detected & made open. Lo (saith Sand, 〈…〉 name of Christ putteth away all Idolatry. Yea sir, where it 〈◊〉 truly professed & believed, not wheresoever it is ●ounded & heard with the outward ears. This therefore pro●●● not the contrary, but Papists worshippers of bread & 〈◊〉, yea of stocks & stones, be Idolaters, as well as the barbarous people in the new Indies, where Christ & Christi●● faith is named, but not embraced nor believed, oftenti●● of the namers themselves. But je. in li. 2. in Esa ca 4. affirme●● Post etc. after the coming of Christ, all idols to have hold●● their peace. If Sand. were not a proud ass, which disd●●neth to learn, I would teach him, that jerom speaketh o●● oracles & answers, which by the devil are given at diurn idols, all which, not only jeron a christian, but also Pluta●●● an heathen man, affirmeth from that time to have ceased and not to have spoken any more. But Hierom was neue● 〈◊〉 impudent to affirm, that there could be no idolatry comm●●ted since the time of Christ. Yet San. affirmeth, that lightly n●● so much as any heretic, yet hath professed to worship●●● artificial Idol, made with the hands of man. You may see, h●● lightly this man is seen in the old writers, or else how impudently he dissembleth that which he knoweth. First Sim●● Magus accounted the father of all heretics did set forth the Images of himself and of Helena his harlot to be worshipped of his disciples, even as the Images of jupiter, Minerva, etc. were among the Gentiles. Epiphani●● lib. 1. Tom. 2. praefat. and Augu. Haer. 1. Secondly Carp●crates made Images privily of jesus, and of Paul, and 〈◊〉 Homer and of Pythagoras, and did offer incense unto them and worship them. Epiph. and Aug. Lib. 6. Thirdly the Gnostikes had Images painted in colours, and some of gold and silver and other matter, which they said were the Images of jesus made under Pontius Pilate when he lived among men. Epiph. Haer. 27. Fourthly the Melchisedechians which were in Arabia Petraea, Robam, and Edom, worshipped the Image of Moses, which they made. Epip. contra Melch. Haer. 55. Finally the Collyridians committed Idolatry unto the Virgin Marie. Epipha. count Collyrid. Haer. 79. Beside so many false Christians as in S. Augustine's time worshipped pictures & sepulchres. And to omit them that worshipped Images in France, whom Gregory unto Serenus affirmeth to have committed Idolatry, although he disallowed the breaking of the Images.  
But Papists are not so insensible (saith Sand.) to worship bread made with the bakers hand. why not? as well as to worship metal, wood, & stone, in your images. yet Chrysostom saith, there were few cities left in his time, in which Idolatry was used: & there is no city in Christendom where the sacrament, hath not been worshipped (saith Saunder) for so many hundredth years. Yes sir, where the Waldenses were in Calabria, in France, Boëmia, & other places, your bread worship prevailed not. And God be thanked, there are now many hundred cities, in which that Idolatry is not openly committed, except it be by stealth in corners, & so no doubt, but heathenish Idolatry, was committed in most cities in the world in Chrysostom's time, considering what number there were of heathen men, in all places. Therefore where Saunder saith, that all Christians for ever have worshipped the sacrament as that very body & blood of Christ, is utterly false, seeing it is not much above 300. years, since Pope Honorius made the decree of that kind of worship, which Sand. defendeth: which decree had been in vain, if all Christians for ever had worshipped it. But Sand. at length asketh, if there be no idolatry in Christendom? he answereth to much of inward idolatry, but no outward idolatry at al. Inward idolatry he counteth, covetousness & heresies: so was Luther the first idolater of our age: them Zuinglius, them Calvin, & the sacramentary english idol, the vanity of which assertion, to have cited, is abundanly to have confuted. He concludeth, that to say that the blessed sacrament of Christ is an Idol, seemeth necessary to employ, that Christ instituted an Idol. This implication must come from such a senseless Idol, as Sand, is, for otherwise they that have eyes & see, & ears & hear, can easily conceive, that an holy sacrament instituted by god, by abuse of Idolaters, may be turned into an Idol, as was the brazen serpent, & therefore was broken by Ezechias. Neither did Christ give any occasion of Idolatry, by his words in the supper, more than God did by his commandment in the wilderness.   

CAP. III.  
The adoration of Christ's body in the sacramen 〈…〉 proved out of the new Testament. 
Saunder.   
The Apostle saith, the unworthy receiver, eateth and drinketh damnation, not putting a difference between 
Fulk.  our lords body, and other meats (saith Saunder.) And this difference is in two points, the first in due preparation of ourselves, which is required in other sacraments to receive the grace of God, the second is, in respect of the substance of the meat, that is received, which is to be honoured and adored. I answer, the earthly substance is not to be adored, the heavenly substance is to be adored in heaven where it is really present, and not upon the earth: and as well in Baptism, as in the supper. But Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. ●8. saith, he eateth unworthily: who considereth not as it behoveth, the greatness of the things set forth, not weighing diligently the greatness of the gift. He speaketh not of the effect (saith Saunder,) but of the substance of the Sacrament: because he saith afterward: If thou dost learn diligently who is s 〈…〉 forth: thou needest to account nothing else. I answer that admit he speaketh of the heavenly substance of the Sacrament, that is Christ, yet he advocheth no real presence of him under the forms of bread and wine, for Christ is set forth in all his Sacraments, both of the old Testament and the new. Christ washeth us in baptism even as he feedeth us in his supper, and he purgeth us with his blood, as verily, as he feedeth us with his body and blood. Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. mean any other thing: when he saith, We must judge that he is the Lord, whose blood we drink in a mystery. For to drink the blood of Christ in a mystery, is to drink it spiritually, by mean of a Sacrament, even as to be washed with the blood of Christ in a mystery, is to be purged by the blood of Christ, by mean of the Sacrament of Baptism. Wherefore the conclusion that Saunder inferreth, is false, and hath ●o ground nor consequence, we must judge the substance of this Sacrament, as the substance of him that ●s G●d, therefore we must adore the substance of this sacrament as God. For admit that I must adore the bo●ie of Christ which is God, yet it followeth not, that I ●ust adore it under the visible forms of the bread and ●ine. For the body of Christ which (as Irenae us saith) ●s the heavenly part of this sacrament, is in heaven, and ●ot united to the bread and wine, or to the shapes of thē●n personal union, more than the blood of Christ, or ●he holy Ghost unto the water in Baptism, & yet I must ●dore the heavenly substance of the sacrament of Baptism, as that which is God, or in personal union united ●o God, as is the humanity of jesus Christ our Saviour. But Chrysostom saith further, in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The very table is the strength of our soul, the sinews of the mind, the bond of confidence, our foundation, hope, health, light, life. I answer, this is nothing else, but the effect of our redemption, whereof we are assured, by participation of that table. As for the heavenly substance, that it is in heaven, Chrysostom sufficiently declareth, when he affirmeth in the same Homily, that we must become eagles, and flee into heaven, for where the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered. Wherefore the adoration, that is defended cannot be proved by the true substance of the sacrament considered, but by the real presence and personal union thereof unto the outward elements: which if Saunder cannot show, he laboureth in vain, to tell us of the true substance of the sacrament, which we confess to be the body and blood of Christ, unto the worthy receiver: but not personally united to that bread and wine, or the shapes of them. But now let us hear, what he hath to say, out of Saint Augustine, Epi. 118. ad januarium: who answereth the question: Whether they do better, that receive the communion every day, or they which at certain times only. Neuter eorum exhonorat etc. Neither of them depriveth the body and blood of our Lord of honour, if each of them strive who may honour best, the most healthful sacrament. For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honour our Saviour in manner by contrary means: the one by receiving him with joy into his house: the other by saying, Lord, I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof. And as among the jews, Manna tasted to every man, according to his own will, in the mouth of the faithful: even so it is to be judged, concerning the receiving of that sacrament, into every Christians mouth. For both one man for honour sake, doth not take it every day: an other for honours sake, dareth not to omit to take it in any day: As Manna would no loothsomenes, so this meat will no contempt. For the Apostle for that cause saith, it to have been unworthily received of them, Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, which did not discern this thing, from other meats by a veneration singularly due. For straight, when he had said, he eateth & drinketh damnation to himself: be said moreover, Not discerning our lords body, the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently marked. This place to Saunder, seemeth marvelous notable, for honour due to the sacrament. And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to be honourable? Verily he that honoureth not the sacrament of baptism, is an heretic: and yet he that adoreth the water of baptism as the holy Ghost, or as the blood of Christ, is an idolater. But Saunder hath no less than ten observations of this place, which for tediousness I will not rehearse all, but only such as in which I descent from him. In the fourth observation he noteth, that we must strive to honour the sacrament, whether by this mean or that it skilleth not, so it be honoured. If he understand of those two means, of which Augustine speaketh. I agree with him, if he mean that it skilleth not by what means so ever we honour the sacrament, I say, he hath no such ground in Saint Augustine. In the fifth observation he saith, If it were in deed the substance of bread and wine, he would never exhort us to be so careful, how to honour a mere creature, were it never so great a sign. I answer, we honour not a mere creature, when we honour the sacrament, for his sake that instituted the same: for we honour God, and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine. We honour not a mere creature, when we honour a magistrate, and yet the magistrate, in substance is a man. In the ninth observation, he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping singularly due, but such a worship, of which sort there is but one, and in the tenth he saith, such a worshipping that only is, which is due to God: who as he hath no fellow in nature: so he hath no partaker in honour. I answer, the veneration, honour, worship, or reverence, due singularly to the sacrament, is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meats, and not of all other things in general. His words are, Which did not discern the sacrament, from all other meats by a reverence singularly due to it, that is to say, of all other meat, only the sacrament ought to have that reverence or honour: Even so the water of baptism must be discerned from all other waters, veneratione singulariter debita, by a veneration or reverence singularly due unto it, being consecrated to the mystical washing away of our sins, and yet no divine honour must be given to the water of baptism. Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing less, then that the sacrament should be worshipped as God & man, really present under those visible shapes of bread & wine, as Saunder impudently doth slander him. But it is worthy to be remembered (saith he) That Augustine useth the word Sacramentum, for the substance of Christ's flesh contained under the sign of bread. Who will grant this unto Saunder? well, if you will not grant it, he hath reason to prove it. For Augustine (saith he) would never have granted, that either the substance of material bread, or the form thereof, aught to be honoured. For honour can be given to no unreasonable creatures. Is this that Saunder, which defendeth the honouring of images? or else be images reasonable creatures? But he careth not what he saith, so he may seem to say something, to the matter in hand.  
In deed Augustine would never defend that device honour should be given to the sacrament, but there is a kind of honour, which may be given, even unto the unreasonable creatures, not in respect of themselves, but in respect of him, to whom all honour, and glory is dew, if they be of him taken and appointed to any honourable use.  
Last of all, we must consider, what it should mean, that Augustine saith, The Sacrament may be honoured by our abstaining, sometimes from receiving it into our mouths, whereas it is no honour to God, if we should any moment abstain to feed on him by faith, and in spirit. Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance, which is received in the sacrament, than the grace is which is the effect of spiritual eating. For his grace cannot come, except we first be made meet to receive it. But his body may come to our bodies, and so may condemn us, before we are meet to receive it. To this frivolous collection I answer, that there is no honour done to the Sacrament, by abstaining from it, but by humility, as the similitude of the Centurion declareth, who counted himself unworthy that the Lord should come under his roof. Again, Augustine defendeth not the act of either of both parts, as good of itself, but making that to be indifferent, he only defendeth their intent and meaning, which was to yield due reverence to the lords sacrament, the one by often receiving, the other by humble intermission, lest the offences, should in their weak nature, breed contempt of so high a mystery. For although we ought continually to feed on Christ by faith, yet it is not necessary, nor convenient, nor possible that the pledge and seal of this spiritual feeding, should every moment be received. But only at such times, as the Church & Elders thereof shall think expedient, for the renewing of our remembrance, and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christ's institution. So that no worthier substance can be gathered to be received in the Sacrament, than the grace of God. And where Saunder saith, that his grace cannot come, except we be first made meet to 〈◊〉 I answer, that we are not made meet to receive the grace of God, but only by the grace of God preventing all preparation of our own. As for his body coming into our bodies, when it is proved out of the word of God, it shallbe granted, but not before.  
Finally, whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ, which is received: of which the Centurion said, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: I answer, he may no more urge the substance of Christ, in the one similitude of the Centurion, than he will allow me to urge it is not the same substance, by the other similitude of Manna, which Augustine likewise useth. As for the same words of the Centurion, used in the liturgy, ascribed to Chrysostom in adoring the sacrament, I deny that any adoration is meant unto the Sacrament, or that those words are spoken unto the Sacrament, but unto Christ in heaven, whose Sacrament that is. What is said or done in the Mass book, I neither know, nor care. That Origen Hom. 5. in diversos, exhorteth them that receive the Sacrament, to use that speech of the Centurion, it proveth neither adoration, nor carnal manner of presence. For immediately before, he hath these words: Inerat & nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium, duplici figura vel more. Nunc enim quando sancti & Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant, tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur. Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient. Et aliud: quando sanctum cibum, etc. The Lord doth now also enter under the roof of the faithful in a double figure or manner. For now when the holy and acceptable to God, the rulers of the Churches, do enter under thy roof, than even there, the Lord by them doth enter. And think thou, even as receiving the Lord himself. And again, when thou receivest that holy and incorruptible meat etc. Behold Origen saith, Christ entereth in a figure, and after such manner as he entereth by his ministers: of which entrance, he teacheth man likewise to say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: therefore this saying importeth no substance of the natural body of Christ really present in the sacrament.   

CAP. V.  
That the fathers of the first six hundredth years after Christ 
Saunder.  did adore the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar.  
The first, which is Dionysius, falsely called the Areopagite, 
Fulke.  could be no writer of the first 600. years, whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus, nor Germadius, gatherers of all ecclesiastical writers, before their time did know, Concerning his saying, I refer the reader to mine answer to Heskins, lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder than his author Dionyse, on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis. The next is Cyprian, which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith, that our sacrifice is Christ: but Christ is to be adored (saith Saunder:) ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament. I answer, whatsoever after any manner is called Christ, is not to be adored. Whosoever receiveth any of Christ's disciples, receiveth Christ: but he shallbe an Idolater, if he give divine honour to him, which is due only to the person of Christ. The like answer I make to that Ambrose saith, de ijs qui mist. cap. 9 that Christ is in the Sacrament: To Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life: To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God, and the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table: To Cyrillus, lib. 3. in joan cap. 37. saying, that by the mysteries we are made partakers of the divine nature. Neither do the sayings of Cyrillus, nor Hilarius, lib. 4. cap. 18. prove a personal union of Christ with the Sacrament, when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally, and by a natural participation: for they say not so simply, but under a Sacrament, under a mystery: etc. that is, the Sacrament doth assure us, that we are truly made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, after an heavenly and divine manner, and not only are joined to him in love and faith, and will, but are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, by his incarnation and holy spirit, uniting us unto him, in a mystical body, not in a personal union: for if any thing which is truly the body of Christ, must be adored with divine honour, the Church of God should be so adored, which is the body of Christ, and so called in the Scripture.  
Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the bread of life, and the mystical loaves, which quicken us, etc. gave no divine honour unto it, as personally united unto Christ, but as to an holy mystery, and seal of our spiritual feeding and conjunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth, that mystery to be both bread and flesh, in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Saunder upon these sayings, buildeth that the Fathers affirmed, that which was on the table, to be the divine substance, yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored, and cannot be eaten corporally, but in the Sacrament. And yet no one father, that he hath cited, saith any such thing. If cyril say, we are by the mysteries made partakers of the divine nature: Saint Peter saith by God's promises we are made partakers of the divine nature, 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the divine substance: And to say, the godhead can be corporally eaten, in the Sacrament, it is monstrous heresy. When Cyrillus saith, Christ dwelleth in us corporally, he saith not by eating the Sacrament, we eat GOD or Christ corporally, but the power of the mystical blessing maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally, by participation of the flesh of Christ.  
But let us yet hear a more full witness, which is Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by me against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Saunder maketh so many observations upon it, I will set it down again. Hoc corpus etc. The wise men reverenced this body in the manger: and being men without good religion and barbarous, they worshipped it with fear and much trembling after a long journey taken. Let us therefore who are the citizens of heaven, at lest follow those barbarous men. For when they saw, the manger and cottage, and not any of those things which thou now seest: they came with most great reverence and quaking. But thou seest that thing, not in the Manger, but in the Altar: not a woman which might hold it in her arms: but the Priest present, and the holy ghost copiously spread upon the sacrifice which is set forth: Neither lookest thou barely upon the body, as they did: but thou knowest the power of it, and all the order of dispensing things. And thou art ignorant of none of these things, which were done by him, and thou hast been diligently instructed in all things. Let us be stirred up therefore, let us quake, and let us profess openly a greater devotion, than those barbarous men: lest if we come barely, and coldly, we jeopardy our head into a more vehement fire. Out of this place Saunder would have the real presence and adoration of the sacrament proved. But this place proveth neither of both. For he speaketh figuratively, of seeing the body of Christ, of seeing the holy ghost spread upon the Sacrifice, etc. which cannot be referred to the eyes of the body, but must needs have a spiritual understanding. The body of Christ is so present, as it may be seen, but it cannot be seen but spiritually, therefore it is not present but spiritually. This is sufficient to show that Chrysostom spoke not of the popish real presence, therefore not of their manner of adoration. Now let us see what wise arguments Saunder can pick out of this place.  
First we must note these comparisons: The Altar, the Manger, the Virgin, the Priest, the Wisemen, the Christians, the adoration of the one and the other: but this last comparison is forged, for Chrysostom requireth our imitation of the wise men, in coming to the Sacrament with reverence and trembling, with earnest desire and affection, not in giving honour to the outward creatures, but to him that is seen by faith. Further, Saunder chargeth him to say, it is the same body in both places, which Chrysost. saith not, although it be the same body which is received spiritually in the Sacrament, with that which the wise men did worship: yet it followeth not, that the same real body is present upon the altar before it be received, to be there worshipped. Saunder urgeth Chrysostom's words, vides in altari, thou seest it on the altar. Lo it is upon the altar, and not only comprehended by faith, but by the mean of the form of bread it is seen. What say you, Saunder? is the body of Christ seen? then is he present visibly. It is a mad kind of corporal sight of his body which is through the form of bread. You were wont to tell us, that a substance is said to be seen, where the proper accidents thereof are seen. And are the accidents of bread the signs now of the body of Christ? O new Philosophy and Theology! but I pray you sir, if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith, but also seen by mean of the form of bread: by what mean is the holy ghost seen? whom Chrysostom likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is. Will you never be ashamed of those impudent shifts, in wresting the holy scriptures, and sayings of the ancient fathers? As for the four reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament, than the wise men did Christ in the cottage, be in vain. For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping, to worship that which is visibly seen in the Sacrament, or the elements thereof, but of coming with reverence unto the body of Christ, which is really in heaven, whereof we are made partakers after an heavenly and spiritual manner in the Sacraments, not by bringing the body of Christ down unto us, but by our ascending up unto him, as Chrysostom showeth plainly, by that long allegory of the Eagles, which he useth in the 24. Homily. Neither doth Chrysostom say, that as those ungodly barbarous men, did worship his body in the manger, and hands of a woman, so we being godly and civil, must worship it lying on the altar, or in the priests hands, in the form of bread. But he exhorteth by this example, his auditors, to come often, decently, & with due reverence & preparation, to the participation of the holy mysteries, in which the same body of Christ (though after an other manner) is seen and dispensed.  
But Chrysostom saith more plainly, Hom. 28. I will show thee that in the earth, which is worthy of highest honour. Where can he show it (saith Saunder) but on the altar, pointing to the host? Yes forsooth, he can show it to the eyes of faith: for to the bodily eyes he can show nothing but bread and wine, which is worthy of small honour. But yet it followeth more plainly, As in the palaces of Kings, not the walls, not the golden roof, but the kings body f●tting in the seat of majesty, is the worthiest thing of all: so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heaven, which is now set forth to the earth, to be seen. What could the greatest Papist in Europe say more, quoth Saunder? Verily no Papist that is advised what he saith, will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seen, but only by the eyes of faith: and so the Lord of all things, is showed by preaching, by ministering of the Sacraments, but not to be seen with eyes of the body, but with the eyes of the mind. Wherefore seeing Christ is set forth to be seen on earth, which sight cannot be but by faith, Chrysostom meaneth of a spiritual sight, showing, & manner of presence, and not of a bodily sight, showing, or manner of presence. Neither do we invent any shifts, as Saunder saith, to avoid the adoration in question, for it shall never be proved, that the Sacrament was adored in the primitive Church, in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papists. But beside Chrysostom, we must have a plain authority of Theodoret, who disputing against an Eutychian, that denieth the humanity of Christ, reproveth him by the example of the Sacrament, wherein two things are found: (saith Saunder) but Theodoret saith there are two natures and substances, bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica, for the mystical signs after sanctification, depart not out of their nature. For they remain in the former substance, figure and form.  
But now hear the shameless gloss of Saunder. In substance, because the forms of bread and wine subsist, by the power of God, and have their being now by themselves, as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine. So that in substances is not in substance, but in accidents, whereupon it will follow in Theodoret's argument, that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity, but the substance of accidents thereof. Secondly he saith, The forms remain in their former nature, because they nourish no less, than the substance of bread itself would have done, if it had remained.  
And is it the shapes or forms of bread and wine that nourished before, while the substance remained? was it the former nature of the forms, to nourish? O monster of impudence! If the substance and not the shapes did nourish, the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth, remain not in their former nature, but have taken upon them a new nature, which no forms or shapes being accidents ever had before. But hitherto Saunder hath done nothing, but by intolerable impudence, sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret, which is so plain and direct against transubstantiation.  
Now followeth the place for adoration, which he citeth in Greek, for more credit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The mystical signs are understood to be those things, which they are made, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and are believed & reverenced. Saunder had rather say, adored as being those things which they are believed to be.  
Hear can be no less, then real presence and adoration. And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sort as Saunder would have him. The mystical signs are spiritually the body and blood of Christ, so to be believed and so to be esteemed, reverenced, honoured, and adored, not by any actual conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, but by the grace of God making the same spiritually, which the signs represent outwardly.  
And so shall Theodoret expound himself, Dialogo primo, Qui enim etc. He which called his natural body, wheat and bread, and nameth himself again a vine, even he hath honoured the tokens that are seen, with the name of his body and blood: not changing their nature, but adding grace unto the nature. And whereas Saunder concludeth upon the place by him cited: Therefore worship is not given to them as to images, which represent a thing absent: It followeth immediately after the words by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imaginem cum exemplari, & videbis similitudinem. Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem. Compare therefore the image, with the pattern or sampler, and thou shalt see the similitude. For the figure must be like the truth. Theodoret calleth the same mystical signs, which are reverenced, the image, and the figure, which represent the body of Christ, which is the principal sampler, whereof the Sacrament is an image, and the truth, whereof the Sacrament is a figure. See you not what real presence he maintaineth? Who so will more at large see Theodoret cited and observed, he may read the 52. and 56. chapters of mine answer to the third book of Doct. heskin's.   

CAP. VI  
The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proved by 
Saunder.  the custom of the Priests and people of the first 600 years.  
First he citeth the liturgies of james, Clement, Basil, 
Fulke.  Chrysostom, all which bear counterfeit names, and yet say nothing to the purpose. They report that the deacon said let us be attended with the fear of God, and with reverence. What is this for adoration? we also charge men to come with fear & reverence, to the communion. Again, the Priest said before the receiving of the communion, Sancta▪ sanctis, Holy things, are for holy men. Saunder laboureth to prove, that they spoke of the Sacrament, as though we denied that the Sacramental! bread and wine were holy things, when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ, to the worthy receivers.  
But Chrysostom ad pop. Antioch. Hom. 61. upon the same saith: Considera, etc. Mark, I pray you, the kingly table is set before the Angel's ministering at the table, the king himself is present, and thou standest by idle. Thy garments are foul, and thou carest not. But if they are clean, then adore and receive. This adoration Saunder would refer to the holy things, but he cannot enforce it, we adore and communicate, yet we adore not the Sacrament.  
Chrysostom in the same Homily saith: that we eat him which sitteth above, which is worshipped of Angels, etc. by which it is evident, that the presence of Christ in the mysteries, is after a spiritual manner, not that he is bodily present. As for the elevation, and the things praised with an hymn, that Dionysius speaketh, although they prove no adoration of the Sacrament, yet I will not stand upon them, because it is clear that Dionysius was a writer out of the compass of six hundredth years, that Saunder hath bound himself unto, howsoever the Papists impudently would affirm, that he was Saint Paul's scholar, whose writings were not heard of in the Church for six hundred years after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite, followeth Basil de spiritu sancto. Cap 27. Inuocationis verba, etc. The words of invocation used in the showing of the bread of the eucharist, and the cup of blessing, which of the Saints have left in writing to us? In that place in deed Basil defendeth ceremonies received by tradition, which are not contrary to the word of God, among which he nameth the words of invocation, which words Saunder will have to be the order of saying Mass, and prayers, and yet after referreth to certain words, which the people answered, when the Priest said, Holy things are for holy men. One is holy (said they) one is the Lord, one jesus Christ in the glory of GOD the father, with the holy Ghost, Amen.  
But these are words of declaration, who is holy, not of invocation. Wherefore the words of invocation were some prayer that was made for the worthy receiving of the mysteries, and not made to the mysteries, as Saunder imagineth. And whereas upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he would not only ground showing of the mysteries, ready to be received, but also lifting up of them, it is a simple argument, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not so properly (as he saith) betoken a showing, by lifting up, as to ordain, to institute, to appoint, and so we need not understand any showing, but an appointment, or ordering of the bread and cup to be the Sacrament.  
Passing over Maximus and Germanus, two late writers, concerning the showing and elevation of the mysteries used in their time, I come to Eusebius Emissenus, Hom. 5. in Pasc. Cùm ad reverendum altare salutari cibo potúq●, etc. When thou comest unto the reverend altar, to be refreshed with the wholesome meat and drink: Look with faith, upon the holy body and blood of thy God, honour it, wonder at it, touch it with thy mind, take it in the hand of thy heart, and especially, receive it with an inward swallowing.  
This place being altogether of spiritual beholding, honouring, & receiving, yet is not Saunder ashamed to cite it for carnal presence, and ad oration of the Sacrament. But how I pray you? forsooth, he telleth us where to have it: on the altar. Nay sir, faith respecteth not things that are visible, therefore not the altar, nor that is seen upon it, but him that is in heaven, which is represented by that which is seen corporally.  
Now, seeing the beholding must be with faith, and the receiving with the hand of the heart, and inward swallowing: who will grant unto Saunder, that the honouring must be with outward reverence, to that which appeareth bread and wine, but with inward and spiritual reverence, dew to Christ which is in heaven?  
But Saunder hath a quarrel against the English Homilies, for translating altar the communion, and salutari cibo potúq●, spiritual meats. I think the writer meant not to translate, but to give the sense: but I know not what Saunder meant in translating this place, for that which Eusebius sayeth, Cordis manusus●ipe, to give none English at all, but leave it clean out. As for the saying of the receivers, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof, it hath been showed already, how it was understood of Origen, and may be said of them that never meant to adore the Sacrament.  
And whereas Saunder sayeth, none other Lord entereth under the roof of his mouth, beside that bread: I marvel, whether he mean to teach us, that tectum is Latin for the roof of a man's mouth, whereas we have always taken it for the roof of an house. Christ is said to enter under the roof of our house figuratively, when he dwelleth in us by faith spiritually. As for eating under the roof of our mouth, it is a gross imagination unworthy of the majesty of Christ.  
The last author is Cyrillus of jerusalem in Catech. Mystag. 5. who biddeth the communicants, to take the king and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand, saying, Amen, and to sanctify their eyes therewith, using all diligence, that no crumb thereof perish or fall away. What needed that precept (saith he) if it were common bread?  
Verily, I take it for a mere superstitious precept, although it were given to young novices, newly admitted to the communion: and yet it proveth not the Popish real presence, unless you think a leg or an arm falleth off, if a crumb be lost. What, when a mouse eateth up all in the Pixe? And what can it be but the substance of bread which hath crumbs, that may fall from it?  
Cyrillus in the same place sayeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For whatsoever thou shalt lose, it is manifest, that in it thou hast lost as it were, part of thine own body.  
I think you will not say, that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants, that in losing a crumb, they lose a part of their bodies. He meaneth therefore a spiritual reverence to be given to the holy mysteries, which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures. Well, after the communion of the body, Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christ's blood, bowing down, and saying in the manner of adoring & worshipping, Amen. If he bade the people come to the chalice of Christ's blood, he was no Papist, & though he bid them come bowing down, & saying in worshipping. Amen: yet you find not that he biddeth them bow down to the chalice, or to adore that which is in it, as you do. We come to the communion with reverent gesture and bowing down, yet we adore not the Sacrament. But if he meant adoring of the Sacràment, why did he not bid them bow down and worship the bread, as well as the cup?  
Finally, that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation, it is plain by his words in the same book: where he showeth that after the ministers of the church are sanctified by the spiritual hymns that were song, they besought their loving God to send his holy spirit upon the things that were set forth, and to make that bread the body of Christ, and that wine the blood of Christ. Then it followeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For whatsoever the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced, that must needs be sanctified and changed. You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance, but such as is in all things that the holy Ghost cometh unto. Where it is said in the Acts, the Apostles returned adorantes, worshipping, we may safely understand, that they returned worshipping of Christ, as well as of the Father and the holy Ghost: but here is no like assurance, that the Sacrament is to be worshipped, therefore adorantes is not of necessity or congruity to be referred unto it.   

CAP. VII.  
Thereall presence of Christ's body & blood under the forms 
Saunder.  of bread and wine, is proved by the testimonies of the ancient.  
The sayings of the doctors, because he hath already 
Fulke.  alleged in every article & Chapter, he professeth now briefly to show, by what general Chapters a man may be undoubtedly assured of their belief & doctrine. And first, because diverse of them allege the almighty power of God to defend the verity of those words and deeds: I answer, that allegation proveth no real presence. For the almighty power of God is more considered in feeding us with the body and blood of Christ, which is in heaven, then in Popish transubstantiation. Yet Saunder misunderstandeth Irenaeus, li. 4. ca 34. as he misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure, the bread whereon thanks are given to be the body of their Lord, & the cup of his blood, if they say not him to be the son of the maker of the world? In these words Irenaeus reasoneth not of the divine power of Christ, which the heretics granted, but they denied him to be the son of that God, which made the world: therefore, by the institution of the Sacrament in bread & wine, which are creatures of the world, Irenaeus proveth, that the father of our Lord jesus Christ, was the maker of the world, & not another just God, as the heretics affirmed. Cyprian in deed in serm. de coen. Dom. allegeth the omnipotency of God for that wonderful conversion of the nature of common bread, to be made the flesh of Christ: but he meaneth not transubstantiation, but an alteration of the use of the creature, to be a mean to feed spiritually with the flesh of Christ, as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appear. Hilary, li. 8. de Trin. allegeth the divinity of Christ, to prove the Sacrament to be truly flesh and blood: which we grant, as he affirmeth under a mystery, and after a spiritual manner. Finally, Basil in Reg. bre. q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init. Cap 9 etc. Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 3. Emissenus hom. 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in joan. li. 4. cap. 13. & 14 places often cited & answered, do all use the argument of omnipotency, but not to prove the Popish carnal or real manner of presence, but to proué that Christ doth above the reach of man's understanding, feed us truly with his flesh & blood, and as Damascene saith, by an inscrutable mean (for he had not learned transubstantiation, though otherwise he were a corrupt writer, in diverse things) as he doth regenerate us in baptism.  
The second general Chapter is, that no man requireth credit to be given to a figurative speech, but the fathers require credit to be given unto it, therefore it is not figurative. I deny the major, for he that requireth not all the figurative speeches in the scripture to be credited, in their true meaning, is an heretic. If these words had been figurative (saith Saunder) we should have been warned by the watch men of God to beware of them. Nay, to beware of misunderstanding them, so we are directly by Augustine, De d●ct. Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. & by others. And who is so mad to deny these words of the cup, to be figurative? This cup is the new Testament in my blood. Again, there is neither Basil, Epiphanius, Cyrillus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Eusebius, or any other that requireth these words to be credited, but they also show, that they are spiritually and mystically to be understanded.  
The third general Chapter is, that the fathers affirm the truth of Christ's flesh, and his flesh to be ea●en truly in the Sacrament, therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament. I deny the argument, for it is the true fl●sh of Christ, whereof we are truly made partakers, yet it followeth not, that the same should be bodily present, but we are fed therewith, & united thereto after a spiritual manner: the body of Christ remaining locally in heaven, and no where else, a● both the Scripture, our creed, and the ancient fathers do tea●h us.  
The fourth Chapter general is, that they which name the 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure, a Sacrament, or remembrance, a ●●●ne, symbol, token, image, type (for so many terms th●y have▪ although Saunder list to rehearse but the three first) do not exclude the substance of Christ's flesh: but show that it is present under the sign of another thing, after a mystical & secret manner. I answer, although they exclude not ●he substance of Christ's flesh, from his supper, yet showing the bread and wine to be signs, tokens, & remembrantes, they exclude the Popish real presence, under the accidents of bread and wine. For signs and the things signified must needs be diverse, yea, opposite as relatives. As when Cyprian saith: the divine substance hath unspeakably infused itself in the visible Sacrament, he meaneth not the substance of Christ's flesh, nor of his godhead, but the grace of God given to the visible Sacrament. D● Coen. Dom. And when Hilary saith: We take the flesh of his body under a mystery, he meaneth not, that the accidents of bread is a mystery, but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament. Likewise, when Cyril of jerusalem saith: under the figure of bread, the body is given: he meaneth, that bread is so a figure of the body, that as the figure is given outwardly, so the body is received inwardly.  
Augustine, de verb. Apost. serm. 2. The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to every man, if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly received, be in the truth itself eaten spiritually, etc. Behold (saith Saunder) there is a thing in the sacrament, & so really it is there, that it is visibly received. What a miracle Saunder hath found! but what thing is that which is visibly received, bread and wine, or the body of Christ? It must needs be the body of Christ (saith he) under the form of bread, for nothing else is to be eaten spiritually. And is the body of Christ present invisibly, as all Papists affirm, and yet received visibly? This is strange Logic. But why may not the bread and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually, when they are by faith understood to be the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to feed the soul as they are corporally digested into the body? be not our souls washed spiritually by means of the water in baptism?  
The fift general head. He that allegeth a cause why the flesh and blood is not seen in the mysteries, presupposeth (although an invisible) yet a most real presence thereof. I answer the allegation of that cause, presupposeth no Popish real presence, but showeth that presence to be spiritual and not corporal: as Ambrose doth plainly in the place which is truncally alleged by Saunder, who taketh only the tail thereof. De sacra. lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis, etc. But perhaps thou sayest: I see not the show of blood: But yet it hath a similitude. For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood. That there may be no horror of raw blood, and yet that the price of our redemption may work. What argument can be more plain than this, that which we drink is the similitude of his blood, ergo it is not his real blood? As for Theophylact a late writer, I will not stand upon his authority.  
The sixth general head. They that acknowledge a change of the substance of bread into Christ's body, must needs mean a real presence of that body. I answer none of the ancient fathers, acknowledged transubstantiation, but a change of use, and not of substance in the bread and wine. The places which he citeth of justinus, & Cyprian, I have satisfied before often times, namely justine, against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth, and be of antiquity, in mine answer to Heskins, Gregory Nyssen. in or. Cathechet. in the second book Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss. or. 5. in. Pasch. ibidem, also Euthymius ibidem. Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same book Cap. 54. Ambros. de mist. init. lib. 2. Cap. 51.  
The seventh general Chapter. All that affirm the external Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, must needs teach the real presence thereof. I answer, none of the ancient fathers, teach the external Sacrifice, but of thanksgiving and remembrance for the redemption by Christ's death. The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili, which he noteth, are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The council of Nice hath been satisfied in this book, lib. 2. Cap. 26.  
The eight head, is the adoration lately confuted.  
The ninth, that they affirm wicked men to receive the Sacrament, for which he sendeth us to his authorities cited, lib. 2. Ca 7. & li. 5. Ca 9 where thou shalt find the confutation, as of the rest so quoted by him.  
The tenth, that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christ's flesh & blood, li. 2. Ca 5. li. 3. Ca 15. & 16.  
The 11. that they teach us to be naturally united to Christ, lib. 5. Cap. 5.  
The 12. that they affirm Christ's body to be on the altar, in the hands, in the mouths, and the blood to be in the cup. lib. 2. Cap. 5.  
The 13. that they give it such names, as only may agree to the substance of Christ, etc. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini, answered by me against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. answered in the fourth Chapter of this book.  
The 14. that they teach every man to receive the same substance in one measure and equal portion, for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper, & lib. 4. Cap. 12.  
The 15. that they use in showing how it is sanctified, the verbs of creating, making, working, consecrating, representing, etc. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen. Do. answered by me against Heskins. lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Jerome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 18.  
The 16. that they spoke of it covertly, saying norun● fideles, lest the infidels should mock at it, for which he citeth Augustine & Chrysostom, is a feeble argument, to prove the real presence, for other spoke openly, even to Infidels, as justinus & Tertullian.  
The 17. that they have applied it to the helping of the souls departed, as being the very self substance that ransacked hell, is false, & not proved out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9 Ca 13. nor Cyprian, li. 1. Ep. 9 as I have showed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9 & Cap. 7.  
The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures, for which he quoteth Augustine de Civitate Dei, li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is, but that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steed of all the old sacrifices, & delivered to the communicants, by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation.  
The 19 that they used by the known truth thereof, to prove that Christ had flesh & blood, for which he quoteth Irenaeus, lib. 4. Ca ●4. answered by me often times, & namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog, which you shall find contra Hesk. li. 3. ca 52. & 56.  
The 20. that they have far preferred it before baptism, that no crumb might be suffered to fall down: for which he quoteth cyril. Catech. Mist. 4. answered in the Chapter next before.  
The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to hear the preaching, might not sec the Eucharistie, that no man might eat it except he were baptised, and kept the commandment, and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad, which was a sign of Christ. For the former part is cited Dionysins the Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later, August. lib. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Cap. 26.  
To this I answer, that these ceremonies and observations partly frivolous, partly superstitious, are too weak arguments to prove the matter in question. So that in steed of the testimonies of the ancient fathers, we have little beside quotations, and vain collections.   

CAP. VIII.  
The real presence of Christ's body is proved by the faith of the whole Church of God, in all times and all ages. 
Saunder.   
To omit that curious question, what shall become of 
Fulke.  all our fathers that so long have believed th' real presence: etc. it is a great untruth, that Saunder affirmeth Berengarius to have been the first that preached & taught against the real presence. For the opinion of the real presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly showed in the see of Rome in any place, nor immediately after commonly received, but in the seventh or eight hundredth year, as superstition, idolatry, and false doctrine began to increase, both in the East and West: it began to take strength, but yet not to be fully confirmed, as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene, the second Council of Nice, and other writers since that time. Neither was the error then unreproved, for the Council of Ephes. 3. which condemned images, gave a true understanding of the supper. Bertrame, whom Saunder affirmeth to be but suspected in his book De corpore & sanguine Domini, which is extant for every man to read, plainly determineth against the Popish real presence and transubstantiation.  
And whereas Saunder offereth a large scope, as he saith, that we should name one bishop in the whole earth, who before the time of Berengarius, reproved the teachers of the real presence, as heretics: I can name none so conveniently as Aelfricke, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the Saxon bishops in his time, who set forth an Homily to be read on Easter day unto the people, and allowed certain Epistles of the said Aelfricke, in which is contained a plain and manifest denial of that bodily presence, for which we strive, and an approbation of the only spiritual manner of presence, which we teach.  
If Saunder will cavil, that although they so taught they reproved not the teachers of the real presence as heretics I refer it to the judgement of all indifferent men, how they would have accused any man that obstinately should have maintained a doctrine contrary to their common belief and consent. How the fathers of the primitive Church believed, concerning the blessed Sacrament, & namely S. August. (whom Saunder half suspecteth, and yet saith he is not against them, because his communion is not forsaken) it hath been plentifully and often showed, & is not here to be repeated.  
But Hilary saith, it is the profession of our Lord, & the faith of the Church, that the Sacrament is truly the flesh and blood of Christ: therefore there is no place left of doubting. Certainly we doubt not, but to the worthy receiver, the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be, after a spiritual manner: but we are out of doubt, that our Saviour Christ retaining the nature of his body, would not make the same insensible, impalpable, incircumscriptible, etc. It is not therefore the presence, nor the real presence rightly understood, but the bodily presence, which we deny, and no man affirmed for six hundred years after Christ, except perhaps Marcus the heretic, that changed the colour of the wine by enchantment, that it might be thought that Christ had dropped his blood into his chalice, as Irenaeus testifieth, lib. 1. Cap. 9  
Likewise, we answer to Epiphanius, we believe the words of Christ to be true, which by grace hath given us bread and wine to be his body and blood spiritually, even as the water of baptism to be regeneration, which similitude Epiphanius useth, even as he doth this of the supper, to show that we are truly made according to the image of God, not by nature, but by grace. Epiph. Anch.  
But Saunder hath a pleasant similitude to show, that the Papists are not gone from the Apostles, and ancient fathers, because a man living in these days, should be unjustly charged with treason, for disobeying of William the Conqueror, or being the son of him that disobeyed William the Conqueror, when he answereth, that he lived not under that king, and all his ancestors in their days were obedient to such kings under whom they lived. A worshipful similitude. But if William the Conqueror made a law, that whosoever committeth these things, or these things, shallbe deemed a traitor, and it is proved that thou hast committed some of them, what will the former answer avail thee? it is the doctrine, and not the persons of the Apostles and ancient fathers, from which you are accused to have departed. But which of the successors of the Apostles (saith Saunder) scent Berengarius to preach that doctrine, whereof they held the contrary? I answer, so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine, which the Apostles themselves commanded to be taught, he needed no special commission from them that were departed from the Apostles doctrine, to reprove them, for he was sent of God, who opened his eyes to see the truth, and their errors, that sitting in the chairs of the Apostles, taught a doctrine contrary to the faith of the Apostles.  
But Saunder will at once prove that all citizens of the house of God, through the world, witnessed with one voice, and in one word, that they believed the bodily presence. For the old custom was, at the words of consecration, and at the time of the receiving the Sacrament, which was said to be the body and blood of Christ, to say, Amen: that is, to affirm it was so. And this Saunder proveth by many witnesses, which is needless: for we know it as well as he. But this proveth no carnal nor bodily manner of presence, except Saunder can prove, that it was told them, this to be the body and blood of Christ, without any figure, really, corporally, present under the only shapes of bread and wine, as they teach now. Yes (saith Saunder) a figurative speech soundeth otherwise, than we must think, whereto (Amen). must not be answered What shall we then answer to these words of Christ, This cup is the new testament in my blood? are not these the words of consecration also?  
But what was meant by Amen, and what the Sacrament is, S. Augustine teacheth serm. ad infants: Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium vestrum in men's a positum est: Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis. Amen respond●tis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo corpus Christi & respondes, Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen tuu●. etc. Therefore if you be the body, receive the lords mysteries, whereunto you are. You answer Amen, and by so answering, you subscribe. Be thou a member of the body of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. These words declare, that not the real presence was advouched by the word Amen, but the spiritual participation of the mystical body of Christ by the faithful.  
But Leo, Ser. 6. de jeiu. 7. mensis saith, Sic sacrae, etc., you ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye doubt nothing at all, of the truth of the body and blood of Christ, for that thing is taken in the mouth, which is believed in faith. And Amen is in vain answered of them who dispute against that which is received. In these sayings Saunder urgeth, that it is received with the mouth, as though Leo did mean, that whatsoever was believed in faith, was received in the mouth, yet the word is are sumitur, it is received by the mouth, which is not all one with, in the mouth. For the body of Christ may be received by the mouth, as by an instrument that receiveth the visible sacrament thereof, and yet the body is not received into the mouth. But Leo speaketh manifestly, against the Manichees, which denied that Christ had a true body: exhorting Christians not to doubt thereof, for except they believed faithfully, that Christ had a true body, they could not with their mouth receive a sacrament of that body, which they believed not to be, nor truly answer Amen, when they disputed against the truth of that body whereof the visible sacrament was a sign, token, and argument, and so used by Tertullian, against the Marcionites that likewise denied the verity of Christ's body.  
Wherefore in this Chapter, Saunder proveth nothing less than in the title he promiseth.   

CAP. IX.  
That no man possibly can be condemned, for believing the 
Saunder.  body of Christ to be really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar.  
His title is of no man possibly, but his demonstration 
Fulk.  is a simple poor man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers upon colour of Christ's almighty power, and will pretended in promising, that he will give his flesh and words, in saying; this is my body. As for them that are simply deceived, they stand or fall to God, I will neither judge of their condemnation, nor absolution. But such as obstinately defend, that error, contrary to their own conscience, as a great number of the Papists, which pretend faith, and seek nothing else but the overthrow of faith, and the glory of God, for as much as that error employeth a denial of the truth of Christ's humanity, and consequently the truth of the resurrection of our bodies, which must be made like unto the glorious body of Christ, and inferreth manifest Idolatry in worshipping that for GOD, which is a mere creature: I see not how they can escape eternal damnation. As for their defence which Saunder maketh, is frivolous. First of the almighty power of God, which is to do whatsoever he will, and is agreeable to his glory, and not whatsoever we will imagine. He can not therefore make his body to be in many places at once, or to be without dimension of quantity, or to be invisible and intangible, because he hath determined of his will to the contrary in five hundredth places of scripture. which testify of the truth of his humanity, like unto his brethren in all points, without sin. Neither doth it derogate from his omnipotency, that he can not do contrary to his will, which were against his own glory.  
It is no infirmity in God, that he cannot lie, that he cannot sin, that he cannot deny himself, nor do contrary to his will & glory; but an argument of his power, wisdom, and goodness.  
And whereas Saunder saith, that Christ hath determined his will in saying: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world: I answer, he hath determined no such will of giving his flesh in the Sacrament by these words, but of giving his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the world, which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapter to be eaten spiritually by faith, not only in the supper, but in baptism, & without both the sacraments, by faith only, which was eaten of all the faithful before the incarnation of Christ, without the eating of which bread of life, no mortal creature can be partaker of eternal life. Further, where Saunder saith: that Christ said, This is my body, and gave his twelve disciples twelve fragments or pieces, whereby he showed, that he made the substance of his body present under the forms of bread in divers places &c: I answer, he declared no will of multiplying his body in divers places at one time by such words or fact. For seeing he had so often before testified, the truth of his humanity, in somuch that he termed himself usually, the son of man, and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for trial of the truth of his resurrection: these words were not sufficient, to teach his disciples, that his natural body could at one time be visible and invisible, tangible and intangible, in local situation and not in local situation, to be whole in one place, and whole in many places, to have quantity actually of length breadth, and thickness, & to have no quantity, actually of length breadth & thickness: these contradictions I say being against nature, reason, sense, his former doctrine, and the scriptures touching the truth of his natural body, and his argument taken of the senses after his resurrection, could not be persuaded with only saying, This is my body, for as much as they had heard him say many things in like phrase, where no like understanding could be imagined, and the scripture speaking of the sacraments, useth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacraments. Wherefore there is no doubt, but the disciples understood these words figuratively, sacramentally, and spiritually. And concerning the fragments and pieces whereof Saunder speaketh, he is a shamed to call them fragments or pieces of bread, as Cyrillus doth, of whom he borrowed the phrase, lest he should acknowledge bread to be any part of the Sacrament. But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ, concerning transubstantiation of the bread into his body, which even the schoolmen affirm, cannot be proved out of the scriptures? And seeing Saunder in his fond Dialogism, induceth Christ saying: that one of his works cannot be contrary to another: seeing his ascension, abiding in heaven, and coming from thence to judgement, are contrary to this imagined presence; and those articles are plainly and manifestly set forth to be believed: how can these only four words, This is my body, which may have another interpretation, agreeable to all the sayings and works of God, make such a declaration of the will of Christ, as thereby the truth of his humanity remaining after it was assumed of the deity and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon, the ascension, abiding of Christ in heaven, and his coming from thence to judgement: although in words they be not denied, yet are and must be brought in doubt, question and uncertainty? The other false brags of this interpretation, universally received and always taught and believed, I omit, with his shameless slanders of Luther's life, and death, whereof the one hath been sufficiently, and many times confuted: the other is so well known, and to so many wise and godly, with whom he lived and among whom he died, that next unto the authority of the scriptures, no one thing more discovereth the falsehood of the Papists, than their impudent slanders and lies, maliciously devised against the true professors of the Gospel.    

The seventh Book.  
To the Preface.  
SAnder having finished the sixth book, supposed to have ended his labour, but then came forth the B. of Salisburies' reply unto Doctor Harding'S book, whereupon he was moved to answer that article, which concerned the real presence. But because the words of both their books were too large to be inserted in this his volume, he hath chosen the pith of either (as he affirmeth) with such fidelity, as Master jewel should find no fault with him. For my part, I was likewise purposed to have omitted the answer of this appendix, partly because Master jewels defence of the Apology, being set forth after this book of Saunder, the chief matters are therein by Master jewel himself weighed and answered: partly, because Saunder, bringeth no new matter in this reply, but either such as he hath brought in the six books before: and partly because his chief and most general answer, is nothing, but a begging of the whole matter in controversy, with an affirming and denying, grounded upon his own authority. By means whereof in this one article, he hath noted jump 218 untruths: how well and justly, let the readers of his book, and Master jewels reply, be judges. As for me, I will not examine them all, but only so many as touch the controversy, with any show of argument, saving that in a few of the first, I will give the reader a taste, that he may judge of the rest. And whereas he chargeth the Bishop for setting one truth against another, for falsifying of authorities, for misconstruing of their meaning &c: as the matters shall occur, I will not fail to consider them.  

CAP. I.  
Master jewel hath not answered Doctor Harding well, touching 
Saunder.  the words of Christ's supper in this article, Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first six hundredth years, to believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament.  
To give a taste (as I promised) of Sanders collection of untruths, I will examine a few. 
Fulke.   
The first untruth is noted to be this: Master jewel said, Whether Christ's body be corporally in the Sacrament, Harding answereth not one word. Harding had said, The terms really, substantially &c. are sound in the doctors, treating of the true being of Christ's body in the Sacrament, Ergo (saith Saunder) Master jewel said not truly: for he proveth afterward, Christ's body to be in the Sacrament. Hear the reason of this untruth is, the whole matter in controversy, whether Harding have proved in deed that which he intended.  
The 2. untruth. jewel saith, in this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct proof. Harding had said, Christian people have ever been so taught, of that kind of presence, which is founded upon Christ's plain words: Ergo saith Saunder, he was able to allege somewhat. But what, I pray you? That Christian people were ever so taught: which is false, that this doctrine is grounded upon Christ's words, which is false also. For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article? Harding saith the three Evangelists and Saint Paul: Ergo saith Saunder, there is the third untruth: for M. jewel hath words plainly written etc. But if these words prove the presence according to the article, the controversy should be at an end.  
The 4. untruth is, that M. jewel saith, Harding upon the words of the institution, foundeth his carnal presence in such gross sort, really, and fleshly in the Sacrament. Saunder replieth it is less carnal, gross, and fleshly, to have the substance of Christ's corporal flesh, in a spiritual manner, really present under the form of bread, then to be in his mother's womb, as Martion, and Apelles counted it, or to make a lie, when he said, take, eat, this &c: As though the granting of Christ's humanity, proved the Popish presence, which is contrary to the truth of his humanity, or that Christ might not say truly, the Sacrament to be his body, except it were after that manner, his body. His presence in spiritual manner, we grant, but we understand spiritual manner, to be otherwise then invisibly, for many things may be so present, that they are not seen, and yet be not spiritually, but corporally present.  
The fift untruth is, that M. jewel saith: Christ useth no leading to that carnal presence.  
Saunder answereth: The word This, leadeth the Apostles to that understanding, as if I say, this is a Lion, it will follow under this visible form, that I show, a Lion is substantially contained, etc. As right as a rams horn. If I show a king or a strong man, I may say truly in some sense, This is a lion. For if I show one substance, and affirm another of it, the speech must needs be either false, or figurative.  
The sixth untruth, and a forged lie is, that Master jewel saith, D. Fisher saith, this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words, as Saunder rehearseth them, are these: No man shall prove by the bare words of the Gospel, that any priest in these days, doth consecrate the true body and blood of Christ. Again. No word is put whereby it may be proved, that in our mass, the very presence of Christ's body and blood is made. judge indifferently of the words, what lie jewel hath forged. Although Fisher meant, that by the interpretation of the fathers, and practise of the Church, the understanding of the Gospel is more certainly obtained: then by the bare words of the Gospel. But Fisher hath other words: Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari, quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentaverit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus & sanguinem, atque Christus ipse conficit, cùm nec issued in scriptures contineatur: which M. jewel beginneth to english thus, It cannot therefore be proved by any scripture. Here Saunder playeth the schoolmaster, and apposeth him. What cannot be proved M. jewel? give me the nominative case to the verb non potest, it cannot, saith Saunder. What cannot? Whereupon is grounded the 7. untruth, when jewel saith: Doct. Fisher saith, the carnal presence cannot be proved neither by these words (this is my body) nor by any other. But I put case Master jewel would answer your deep demand, in saying, that potest in this place, is a verb impersonal, and therefore he can give it no nominative case at all, but must english it thus, non potest it cannot. If you will ask him, why he saith then the carnal presence cannot be proved, as though presence were the nominative case: he will answer you, he doth not so construe, or translate the Latin, but he inferreth that conclusion, upon Fisher's words. No word is put whereby it may be proved, that in our Mass the very presence of Christ's body and blood is made. But your learning, will have the whole speech following to be the nominative. I say, let it so be, if you will needs have it so, yet Master jewels conclusion is true: That Fisher affirmeth the carnal presence cannot be proved to be made, either by lay man or Priest: ergo it cannot be proved at all. Yet saith Saunder, How many enormous faults have you committed here, master jewel? First Harding affirmed these words, This is my body, to teach a real presence: Fisher spoke of these words, Make this thing, and not of these words, This is my body. This were an enormous fault, if Fisher had not said, Non potest per ullam scripturam probari, it cannot be proved by any scripture: but seeing he said so, this is an enormous, slanderous, impudent, and foolish lie, and cavil of Saunder. Secondly, Harding spoke of the real presence, if any sacrament be made at all: Fisher, whether any man had authority to make any Sacrament at all or no. When you can find Hardings if, or condition, you shallbe answered to Fishers whether or question. Thirdly Harding spoke of Christ's words; Fisher of our doings. If the scripture be not Christ's words, Fisher spoke only of our doings. 4 Fisher doubted not but the words made the presence, but he asketh the heretics how they can prove it by the holy scriptures. Nay sir, he affirmeth precisely, that it cannot be proved by the scripture. These are the four great enormous fault. I trust after this taste, no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders untruths, falsely fathered upon Master jewel. Wherefore I will go from henceforth only to the matter in controversy. Hitherto you hear not Master jewels article disproved. Videlicet, that the people were not taught, etc. as in the beginning of the Chapter. The question, being not of the words, but of the meaning, saith jewel, Christ meant not this to be his body really. Hereto Saunder allegeth a place of Hilary: lib. 8. de Trin. to prove, that Christ lacked neither wisdom, nor utterance, to speak plainly of his Sacraments, and mysteries: which is very true, for he spoke plainly, sincerely, and truly, although he spoke figuratively. Neither did he speak otherwise then he meant, seeing it is his body after a certain manner, as Augustine saith.  
But seeing here are three or four persons speaking: M. jewel, M. Harding, M. Saunder, and myself: it shall not be amiss to bring their several speeches in form of a Dialogue for briefness, as Saunder giveth me example.  jewel. 
Christ was the Rock, but yet not really.  Sand. 
S. Paul spoke not these words with intent to make any sacrament, or any other thing.  Fulke. 
S. Paul spoke these words of a Sacrament, made by God in the wilderness.  Sand. 
Two diverse natures in those words are named, which can not be one substance. But this is my body nameth one substance.  Fulke. 
One substance is demonstrated, and another named. Moses might have said truly, showing the rock to the people. This is Christ, or else S. Paul could not have said truly, the rock was Christ.  Sand. 
It was not any one certain rock, whereof S. Paul spoke, for the water flowed out of two Rocks. Either of which did signify Christ, and they both are only one Rock in meaning, and in substance figured: therefore Saint Paul meant only of the spiritual Rock, which is Christ.  Fulke. 
Manna, which was the spiritual meat they did eat, rained every day, yet was it but one Christ in signification: therefore S. Paul meant only of the spiritual Manna, which is Christ, and not of the corporal Manna which was a sacrament of Christ: if this reason hold not of the spiritual meat, how can it hold of the spiritual drink?  jewel. 
Christ gave his disciples (as S. Augustine saith) the figure of his body and blood.  Sand. 
He did so: but he gave such a figure, as is also the substance of his body, as himself being a figure of his father's substance, is also the self-same substance with his father.  Fulke. 
As he gave a figure, he gave not the substance. Christ is the figure of his father's substance, as he is a person distinct by himself, and not his father. Neither doth Augustine mean, of such an unity in essence, as is between God the father & the son, when he doth plainly divide, sacramentum & rem sacramenti, the Sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacrament: that is the figure, and the thing figured.  Sand. 
He gave a true and not a false sign, lib. 2. ca 12. A miraculous, not a common figure. lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical, not an artificial figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A divine, not a rhetorical figure. lib. 2. cap 14.  Fulke. 
These are answered in their proper places above cited.  Sand. 
He gave a figure of the new testament which hath truth, & not which betokeneth a thing absent from it, which August. declareth in Psa. 39 The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come. etc.  Fulke. 
Augustine in this place, and in many other maketh this difference between the sacrament of the old Testament, and of the new, that theirs were of Christ to come, once of Christ exhibited and already come, but of the real presence he speaketh no word. Ablata sunt signa promittentia etc. The promising signs are taken away, because the truth that was promised, is exhibited. In this body we are, of this body we are partakers. Speaking of the body of Christ which was sacrificed once for all, in which we are after a mystical manner included and are also partakers thereof, after a mystical manner, and so were all that ever pleased GOD: not after a corporal manner, such as the Papists imagine: wherefore Augustine saith upon the same Psalm, alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament, Sursum corda habcamus. Siresurrexistis cum Christo, dicit fidelibus, corpus & sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit etc. Let us have our hearts above. If ye be risen again with Christ, he speaketh to the faithful, he speaketh to them which receive the body and blood of our Lord, if you be risen again with Christ, savour of these things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, etc. Behold Augustine teacheth how to receive Christ truly, and not as he saith elsewhere, Sacramento tenus, as far as the sacrament, or outward sign only.  Sand. 
He gave a figure, but he spoke not a figure.  Fulke. 
Augustine affirmeth both proved li. 2. cap. 14.  Sand. 
The names of body and blood do usually signify a visible, corruptible & mortal nature, which Augustine knowing, was a frayed lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth, none otherwise then in the shape of bread: for that respect, he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the sacrament, is the sign and figure of Christ's visible body.  Fulke. 
Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but only by way of a similitude showeth, that if children should never learn more of Christ, then that the Sacrament should be showed them and told them, that it is the body of Christ, and also if they should never see the shape of bread but only in the celebration of the sacrament, they would imagine, that Christ had appeared only in that shape: but this is impossible, therefore Augustine could not fear it. And seeing he had no such fear, he had no such respect, as Saunder dreameth, as well concerning his fear, as concerning his respect.  Iew. 
Tertullian saith: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body.  Sand. 
He meaneth so as I said before of S. Augustine, and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the truth of Christ's body.  Fulk. 
Tertullian proveth, that Christ had a true body, because the sacrament was a figure thereof: for a phantasm or a vain thing, can have no figure. Wherefore Saunder, and not Master jewel, reasoneth like a Marcionite, confounding the figure with the thing figured.  Sand. 
Tertullian speaking most literally of bread, as it was an old figure of Christ's body, whereof in jeremy it was said, Let us put the wood of the cross into his bread, to wit upon his body, saith: Christ then fulfilling the old figures, made bread his body: if he did so, it could not tarry bread any longer.  Fulk. 
This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in words and sense. Tertullian asketh. But why did he call bread his body, and not rather a pepon which Martion accounted in steed of an heart, not understanding, that this was an ancient figure of the body of Christ, saying by jeremy: Against me have they thought a thought, saying: Come, let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the cross on his body. Therefore the lightener of antiquities, sufficiently declared what he would have bread then to have signified, when he calleth bread his body. These words declare, wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signify his body, in his supper: namely because it had been an ancient figure of his body, in somuch that it was called bread. But he made bread his body, therefore it is not his body still. I answer, Tertullian showeth how he made it his body, when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body. Baptism being made regeneration, is still a washing with water. The rock when it was made Christ, remained still a rock. etc.  Iew. 
After consecration, saith Saint Ambrose, the body of Christ is signified.  Sand. 
S. Ambrose de mist. cap. 〈◊〉. doth speak of that signification, which is made whiles the priest pronounceth: Hoc est corpus meum, which words he saith, do work in the consecration, that which they signify: therefore they work the body and blood of Christ.  Fulk. 
Fie for shame, Saunder, when Ambrose saith, Post consecrationem, after consecration, will you say he speaketh of the signification of the words which as spoken in the time of the consecration? the words of Christ indeed do work, as Ambrose saith, and what work they, but that which is added to the elements after consecration? namely a signification of the body of Christ.  Iew. 
It is a bondage and death of the soul saith S. Augustine, to take the sign in steed of the things signified.  Sand. 
Saint Augustine meaneth of such kind of signs, when either the thing which appeareth to be signified, is not at all true according to the letter, or else, when the thing signified is absent in substance. etc.  Fulk. 
Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressly of figurative speeches, when they are understood, as if they were proper: and cap 16. of the same book, giving a rule to know figurative speeches from proper, he exemplifieth, the eating of the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood, to be a figurative speech. Wherefore you see master jewels article of challenge standeth untouched, for any thing brought in this chapter: And that Saunder can yield no good cause why master jewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the words of Christ's supper.   

CAP. II.  Sand. 
That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries.  Fulk. 
Saunder will acknowledge nothing in the sacrament, whatsoever we teach, protest, and believe, except we acknowledge his real presence, but a bare figure.  Sand. 
S. Hilary, and S. cyril teach, that the nature of signs or seals is such, as setteth forth the whole form of the kind of thing, printed in them and have no less in them, than those things whence they are sealed.  Fulk. 
Such a seal we believe the Lords supper to be of Christ's death and our redemption.  Iew. 
He must mount on high, saith Chrysostom whoso will reach to that body.  San. 
Accedere is to come to, & not to reach He spoke of coming to the visible table.  Fulk. 
He spoke of coming to the visible table, so as we might attain to the body of Christ, which is in heaven, & for that cause he said, we must be eagles in this life. Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24.  Sand. 
He saith, Ipsa mensa, The very table is our salvation, & life. And again: This mystery maketh that while● we be in this life, earth may be heaven to us.  Fulk. 
As earth is heaven to us, & the table salvation, so is the sacrament the body of Christ.  Iew. 
Send up thy faith (saith Augu.) & thou hast taken him.  Sand. 
The place is abused. See lib. 2. cap. 29.  Fulk. 
And see the answer there.  Iew. 
The bread that we receive with our bodily mouths, is an eathly thing, and therefore a figure, as the water in baptism.  Sand. 
The water in baptism is no figure, but the figure is the word coming to the water. As the water in baptism is no figure, when the words are absent, so bread could not be a figure any longer, when the words are fully passed.  Fulk 
Master jewel speaketh of the water whereunto the word is come, which as it remaineth no sacrament, after the use of baptism, no more doth the bread out of the use of receiving. That consecration consisteth in the only words, This is my body, it is false: For Christ's words are more, Take, eat, etc.  Iew. 
The body of Christ is the thing itself, & no figure.  Sand. 
The body of Christ under the form of bread, is itself both the thing, & also a figure of the mystical unity of the Church. So S. Hilary teacheth. The natural property by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect unity. See libr. 5. Chap. 5.  Fulk. 
The natural property is not the personal substance, or proper nature of Christ. See the answer as above.  Iew. 
In respect of the body, we have no regard to the figure, whereunto S. bernard alluding saith: The sealing ring is nothing worth: it is the inheritance I sought for.  Sand. 
What a desperate custom is it for you, to allege always the fathers of the last 900. years, whom you have already condemned?  Fulk. 
What a devilish custom is it for you, always to lie and slander?  Sand. 
S. Bernard saith, the body and blood itself to be the sign: Vt securi suis etc. That you may be without fear, you have the investiture of our lords sacrament, his precious body and blood.  Fulk. 
You falsify Bernard's words in translation, and pervert his meaning: Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis & sanguinis preciosi investituram habetis. That you may be without fear, you have the investitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lord, and of his precious blood. The sacrament is the investiture as the ring, and not the body of Christ. If the body of Christ were the ring of the investiture, Bernard would not have said, the ring is nothing worth. Yet the sacrament as a seal putteth us in assurance of the inheritance, and not bate bread, as Saunder babbleth.   

CAP. III.  Sand. 
That Christ's body is received by mouth, & not by faith only.  Iew. 
The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and none otherwise.  Sand. 
You are the maintainer of a blasphemous heresy, and affirm the same which the Arrians did.  Fulk. 
Master jewel is more free from Arrianisme, than you from Eutychianisme.  Sand. 
Christ said after bread taken, etc. Take, eat, this is my body, but he spoke of eating by mouth, and not by faith alone, and the thing eaten to be his own body: therefore his body is not eaten by faith only, but by mouth also.  Fulke. 
That which was to be eaten with mouth, was bread in nature, and his body in mystery, which body was to be eaten by faith, and not by mouth, as the bread was to be eaten by mouth and not by faith.  Saunder. 
All that was eaten by mouth or by faith, at Christ's supper, came from Christ: but all that he is written to have given, came from his hands: therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all, or his body came then from his own hands. Answer the Gospel, master jewel, or else blaspheme no more.  Fulke. 
I deny your minor. For it is written: The spirit it is, that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. joh. 6. Life, remission or sins, participation of his death etc. were given, but not all, nor at all, by his hands, but by his divine spirit.  Saunder 
The fathers teach, that we eat Christ's body by our mouths, and not die faith only.  Fulke. 
They teach, we eat the Sacrament, which is so called, and which after a certain manner is the body of Christ, but not absolutely.  Saunder. 
S. Cyprian saith of evil men. Ser. de lap. 5. Plus modo, they sin now more against our Lord, with their hands and mouth, then when they denied our Lord.  Fulke. 
They sin against our Lord in receiving the Sacrament unworthily, more than in denying, because denying was of weakness, this other of hypocrisy.  Saunder. 
Cyprian saith, the sin is invading and doing violence to our lords body and blood.  Fulke. 
That is to the Sacrament thereof, for our Lord's body is impassable.  Saunder. 
Chrysostom witnesseth, us to take in our hands, in our mouths, to touch, to eat, to receive into us Christ's flesh: is all this done by faith only?  Fulke. 
Chrysostom witnesseth we see, All the people to be made red, with the blood of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith? Desacerd. lib. 3. He saith Christ i● broken in the Sacrament, which he was not on the cross. Is that done really? in 1. Cor. Hom. 24.  Saunder. 
Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter, ye ought so to communicate, that ye doubt nothing, etc.  Fulke. 
Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8.  Saunder. 
Cyril against the Arrian lib. 10. Cap. 13. showeth us to eat Christ corporally.  Fulke. 
You slander Cyril, he saith the virtue of the mystical blessing, maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally, by participation of the flesh of Christ, & not by faith and love only.  jewel. 
Christ's body is meat of the mind, not of the belly, saith S. Cyprian.  Saunder. 
I find no such words in Cyprian, but whosoever spoke them, it will follow, that the meat he speaketh of, is not material bread.  Fulke. 
If you find not the words in Cyprian, you may find them in Gregory, who by error of the printer, is called Cyprian, and you may find the sense in Cyprian: we sharpen not our teeth, nor prepare our belly, but with sincere faith, we break the holy bread. You find in servant de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread, we agree with you, and ever did.  jewel. 
Believe and thou hast eaten, saith S. Augustine of Christ's blessed body.  Saunder. 
These words are not offacramental eating, but of spiritual eating.  Fulke. 
He saith, ut quid paras dentes &▪ ventrem? to what end dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? believe and thou hast eaten. Therefore he showeth, that Christ is not received by mouth and belly, but by faith only.  jewel. 
It is better to use the word figure, than the words really, corporally.  Saunder. 
It is better to use the words body, blood, flesh, which are the words of scripture, than the word Figure, which is used of the father's only.  Fulk. 
Master jewel compareth not the word figure, with the words of scripture, but with the words really, corporally, used neither in scripture, nor in the fathers.   

CAP. FOUR  Saunder. 
Master jewel hath not replied well, touching the sixth Chapter of Saint john, but hath abused as well the Gospel, as diverse authorities of the fathers.  Harding. 
The promise of giving the flesh which Christ would give for life of the world, being only performed in the supper, proveth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper, which was offered upon the cross, for the life of the world.  jewel. 
Master Harding supposeth no man to eat the flesh of Christ, but only in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
He denieth not, but that Christ's flesh may be eaten spiritually, both by faith and by baptism, but not really, save only in the supper.  Fulke. 
If Christ speak there only of his gift in the supper, than all are void of life eternal that receive not the supper: Except ye eat, etc.  jewel. 
The words be plain and general, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, ye shall have no life in you.  Saunder 
He saith, ye shall not have life in you.  Fulke. 
A diversity without a difference.  Saunder. 
He meaneth of him who having discretion, to prove himself, refuseth to receive the Sacrament of Christ's supper.  Fulke. 
This is a gloss of your own discretion, and not the meaning of Christ's words, who denieth life to all them, that are not fed with his flesh and blood.  jewel. 
Seeing Christian children receive not the Sacrament, by Master Hading it will follow, they have no life.  Saunder. 
It will follow they have not in themselves, the flesh of life, as Cyrillus ●aith, in their bodies, but it is an untrue sequel, to say, they have no life at all: for they have spiritual life in baptism.  Fulke. 
They could have no life in baptism, if they were not fed with the flesh and blood of Christ, without which, there is no life at all▪ whatsoever it please Saunder to gloss.  jewel. 
S. Ambrose saith, Christ giveth this bread to all men daily, and at all times.  Saunder. 
He may mean of the gift which is in spirit, or which is daily ready in the Sacrament.  Fulke. 
He doth mean, that the bread is not given only in the Sacrament, which is not given to all men, nor at all times.  jewel. 
S. Augustine saith: They eat Christ's body not only in the Sacrament, but also in very deed. Behold not only in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
S. Augustine speaketh of the mystical body, which is the company of the elect, and the holy Church of God, not of the natural body, which sitteth at the right hand of God.  Fulke. 
Augustine saith, qui ergo est, etc. He than that is in the unity of his body, that is in the coviunction of Christian members (the Sacrament of which body, the faithful communicating are accustomed to receive from the altar) he is to be said truly to eat the body of Christ and to drink the blood of Christ. De civi. Dei. li. 21. Cap. 25. In the same Chapter he apposeth, Sacramento tenus & revera manducare corpus Christi, to eat the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament, and to eat the body of Christ in very deed. Ergo they that eat the Sacrament only, eat not the body of Christ in very deed. Therefore Christ's gift is not only in the Sacrament.  jewel. 
The fathers of the old law, received the self same body, that is now received of the faithful. Aug. de util. p●n. Cap. 1.  Saunder. 
Augustine saith, the self same spiritual meat, that is Christ by faith, but not the same corporal meat, which is the body of Christ, Tract. 11. in joan.  Fulke. 
Augustine saith not, that the body of Christ is our corporal meat, but that which answereth in proportion to Manna, as a corporal meat, namely bread and wine. Tract. 26.  Saunder. 
But Tract. 11. he saith, Quid est Manna? what it Manna? I am, saith Christ, the living bread that came down from heaven.  Fulke. 
It followeth immediately, Manna accipiunt fideles, the faithful receive Manna: therefore he meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporal meat, but for the body of Christ, which is spiritual meat.  Saunder. 
But he sayeth further: It is known what God had reigned from heaven. And know not the Catechumeni what Christians take? Let them blush because they know not. Let them pass over by the red sea. Let them eat Manna, that even as they have believed in the name of jesus, so jesus may commit himself to them. Therefore, jesus is eaten bodily of us after baptism.  Fulke 
I deny the argument, except Manna be jesus bodily. If Manna be spiritually taken, than jesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna, which Saunder confesseth to be only spiritually.  Saunder. 
But Catechumeni might so eat Christ, that is spiritually.  Fulke. 
They might not eat Christ in the Sacrament, before they were baptised, and therefore they were ignorant of that mystery.  jewel. 
Every faithful man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in baptism, whiles he findeth that unity which is signified by the Sacrament: Therefore, the faithful eat Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament. Apud Bedam, 1. Cor. 10.  Saunder. 
They are not partakers really, but only in the Sacrament of the supper, in which, if the body were not really present, he that is baptised, should not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christ's supper, because he is not partaker of bread and wine, but only is made a member of that mystical body, which in the Sacrament is signified.  Fulke. 
Beda knew no such distinction of really & spiritually. Neither doth he say, they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper, but of the body and blood of Christ in baptism: wherefore I know not whereof Saunder dreameth.  Saunder. 
Augustine saith of heretics and schismatics, de civit. Dei, lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that sacrament. The bond of peace expressed, is not the wheaten corns moulded in one loaf, but the body of Christ present really under the forms of bread and wine.  Fulke. 
Alack poor sophistry. Christ is the bond of peace, but the bond of peace is expressed in the external Sacrament of bread and wine. Although the wheaten corns are not the bond of peace expressed, yet the bond of peace is expressed by the wheaten corns, etc.  Saunder. 
Look in my 5. book, Cap 5.  Fulke. 
Look there for an answer.   

CAP. V.  Saunder. 
Master jewel hath not replied well, touching the Capernaites.  Harding. 
If Christ in S. john had spoken tropically, the jews and disciples, who were used to figures, would not have said: This is an hard saying.  jewel. 
His reason hangeth thus: The Capernaites understood not Christ: ergo his body is really in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
No sir, They understood Christ to speak without parables, & Christ's words pertain to the sacrament, therefore his body is really in the Sacrament. They understood what Christ promised, but they believed it to be either not possible, or not convenient.  Fulke. 
The mayor & minor of your misshapen syllogism, are both false. Augustin in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem, etc. They were afraid of his speech, & not understanding, they thought our Lord jesus Christ had spoken some hard thing, etc.  Saunder. 
S. Augustine saith, they understood not, because they believed not. in joan. Tr. 27.  Fulke. 
What though infidelity were the cause of their not understanding, yet he saith, Non intelligendo scandalizati sunt, By not understanding, they were offended: ergo you said falsely, they understood what he promised. And much less understood they the mean how it should be performed.  jewel. 
He said, The bread which I will give etc. of spiritual eating: It is the spirit that quickeneth. Understand ye my words spiritually, saith Augustine.  Saunder. 
See in my third book, Cap. 19 & 20.  Fulke. 
See the answer in the same places.  jewel. 
Ye shall not eat, saith S Augustine (with your bodily mouth) this body that you see, etc. I give you a certain Sacrament.  Saunder. 
Of this place I have spoken at large, lib. 6. Cap. 2. & lib. 3. Cap. 14.  Fulk. 
And I have sufficiently answered in the same places.  Saunder. 
Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustine's meaning, Master jewel hath false translations.  Fulke. 
Saunder heath foolish quarrels: master jewel giveth the sense faithfully.  jewel. 
We have a spiritual mouth, taste, eyes, ears, as Basil, Leo, Origen, Tertullian say, Christ is to be digested by faith, he is the bread of the mind, not of the belly, to believe in him, that is to eat the living bread: therefore Christ's meaning is spiritual & not real.  Saunder. 
The fondest kind of reasoning in the world. Christ is eaten both spiritually & bodily.  Fulke. 
All these fathers mean only spiritual eating, excluding all other carnal & grosser manners of eatings.  Saunder. 
Doth not Tertullian say, The flesh is fed with the body & blood of Christ, to the end the school may be made fat of God?  Fulke. 
Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the external Sacraments, which have the name of the things signified, as of the signs of baptism, imposition of hands. etc.  jewel. 
Chrysostom will not suffer this evasion: who saith, to understand carnally, is to understand plainly, as the things be uttered, and to think upon nothing else.  Saunder. 
We understand not so. For we seeing the form of bread, think upon the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
But what did the Capernaites see, whose understanding you defend? And what other thing do you understand, then is uttered in the words?  jewel. 
S. Augustine saith: The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speech, commanding us to be partakers of Christ's passion.  Saunder. 
The speech is figurative, not in the substance to be eaten, but in the manner of eating: therefore when Christ had consecrated bread into his body, that speech was not figurative, because the manner of eating was determined under the forms of bread and wine.  Fulk. 
Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole, expounding the meaning of that figurative speech, not of eating Christ under the form of bread, but of communicating with the passion of Christ, which is represented by the Sacrament, and is performed without the Sacrament. So you fail, both in your substance and manner of eating.  Saunder. 
Of the whole saying of Augustine, I have entreated more fully, lib. 3. Cap. 14.  Fulke. 
And I have answered more fully.  jewel. 
Tertullian saith: The Capernaits thought his speech was hard, and intolerable, as though he had determined to give them his flesh verily, and in deed to be eaten (with their mouths) therein saith Tertullian stood their error.  Saunder. 
The word ve 〈…〉 doth not show that they took it to be eaten in substance, but that they thought they should eat it carnally, they thought not of eating under the form of bread.  Fulke. 
Not only the word verè, must needs show they thought the substance of his flesh should be eaten verily, but also the argument of Tertullian doth plainly prove it. For he answereth the objection of them that denied the resurrection of the flesh, because of the Angelic perfection, whereunto the children of the resurrection shallbe changed: showing that the perfection shall not be through virtue of the flesh, but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on. Using a similitude of the flesh of Christ, which of itself doth profit nothing, but by virtue of the spirit, which maketh it able to give life. Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was, in that they imagined the substance of Christ's flesh should be eaten bodily, which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually, and by faith of his word only. As for the authority of Lyra which followeth, is not worth the contention.   

CAP. VI  Saunder. 
Master jewel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth of S. john, as it ought to be.  jewel. 
Christ in S. john speaking of spiritual eating faith, made no mention of any figure: But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spiritual eating, which the fathers oft call a figure.  Saunder. 
If spiritual eating by faith be only spoken of, why saith he dabo I will give, when spiritual eating was already given?  Fulke. 
Because he would continue his giving, as he had done before, and accomplish his passion, by which his flesh was made meat.  Saunder. 
The performance doth expound the promise, especially when he saith: this is, etc.  Fulke. 
Here is no new promise, but a continuance of the old, of spiritual eating by faith.  Saunder. 
The fathers, who call Christ's supper a figure, must needs mean such a figure as was promised.  Fulke. 
There was no figure promised in the sixth of john: therefore they mean another thing than was there promised or spoken of.  jewel. 
Master Harding putteth no difference between things pertaining severally to the body and the spirit. Origen. in Cantic.  Saunder. 
Origen doth speak of them, who reading that book would perhaps apply the names of love there used, carnally.  Fulke. 
Prologue. in Cantic. he speaketh of divers meat of the inward man, and of the outward man. The meat of the outward man, is agreeable to his nature, bodily and earthly. The meat of the inward man, is the bread which came down from heaven, etc.  Saunder 
You have set forth the book of canticles in the vulgar tongue, contrary to Origens' judgement, to be read of every wanton boy or girl.  Fulke. 
As though that book was not in the vulgar tongue in his time, when it was in the Greek tongue. Beside that he saith, the little ones can take no great hurt if they read it, although it be meat for perfect men.  jewel. 
The bread is a figure.  Saunder. 
Before consecration, S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure, but not after the words are said over it.  Fulke. 
He confesseth it to be bread before, and to be called the body of Christ after consecration, and that the body of Christ is signified thereby. De mist. Cap. 9 Yea he calleth it a figure of the body & blood of Christ: De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration. Touching Damascen, and Rabanus Maurus, I will not strive, because they are both later wnters than 600. years, although the later be clear against this piece of Popery, the other not clearly for it.  jewel. 
The Sacrament (saith Augustine) is received from the Lords table: Of some unto life, of some unto destruction: The thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament (that is the body of Christ) is received of every man to life, & of no man unto destruction, whosoever be partakers of it.  Saunder. 
Here is a heap of falsehood and lies.  Fulke. 
Here is an impudent cavillation.  Saunder. 
The thing of the Sacrament, is not the body of Christ sitting in heaven, but the company of Saints, and the unity of the body and blood of Christ, not his natural body, but his mystical body the church. Therefore, he saith not simply: The Sacrament, but the Sacrament of this thing, that is to say, of the body and blood of Christ, which five words, M. jewel hath left out.  Fulke. 
These five words help you as much as five eggs, whereof four be rotten. For Augustine by them understandeth the flesh & blood, which Christ promised to give, which if it be not the same body which sitteth in heaven, that body which sitteth in heaven is not given (by his judgement) in the Sacrament. For thus he writeth upon these words of Christ, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting: Therefore he hath not this life, which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this blood. For temporal life men may have without it, but eternal they cannot have at all. Therefore, he that eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, hath not life in himself: and he that eateth his flesh & drinketh his blood, hath life eternal. And that he saith, everlasting life, answereth to both: it is not so in this meat which we take for sustentation of the life of this body: for he which taketh it not, shall not live: and yet he shall not live which shall take it. For it may be, that by old age or sickness, or some chance, many which shall take it, may die: but in-this meat & drink, that is, in the body and blood of our Lord, it is not so, for both he which taketh it not, hath not life: & he which taketh it, hath life, & that verily eternal. Therefore he will have this meat & drink understood to be the fellowship of his body & his members, which is the holy church in his saints, and faithful ones predestinated & called, & justified, & glorified. Whereof the first is already done, that is predestination, the second & third is both done & is a doing, & shallbe done, the is, calling & justification: but the fourth is now in hope, & shallbe in deed, that is glorification. The Sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body & blood of Christ, in some places daily, in some places by certain distance of days, is prepared in the Lords table, to some unto life, to some unto destruction. But the thing itself, whereof also it is a Sacrament, is to every man unto life, to no man unto destruction, whosoever shallbe partaker of it.  
You have therefore gained thus much by your cavilling: that neither the flesh and blood of Christ, promised in the sixth of john, nor the thing of the Sacrament is the body of Christ which sitteth in heaven, but the participation of his mystical body, and the fellowship or communion of his body, and the members thereof, which is the assurance of eternal life. But where you say, the Sacrament is that natural body of Christ which sitteth in heaven, you say beside your book: for neither Augustine, nor any ancient father did ever say, that the Sacrament of the body of Christ was the body of Christ, otherwise then after a certain manner of speaking, as Augustine saith.  Saunder. 
The material bread was prepared by the Baker, ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table, is the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
I deny the argument. The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament, although he prepare some part of the earthly matter that is required unto it, more than the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptism, by pouring of water into the font.   

cap. VII.  Saunder. 
Master jewel hath not disputed well, touching the omnipotency of Christ, in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh.  Harding. 
Christ, by showing his divine power, whereby he will ascend into heaven, confoundeth the unbelief of the Capernaites, touching the promised substance of his body.  jewel. 
When ye see Christ ascend whole, ye shall see, that he giveth not his body in such sort, as you imagine. His grace is not wasted by morsels, saith S. Augustine, using Christ's ascension to prove, that there is no su●● gross presence in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
He is not present to be wasted, but yet he is really eaten.  Fulke. 
S. Augustine's place showeth, that Christ reasoned not of his omnipotency or divine power, but of the absence of his humanity by his ascension, and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten, is not his natural flesh to be bitten in their mouths, but his grace to be received by faith in their hearts.  jewel. 
This table is the table for Eagles, & not for jays, saith Chrysostom.  Saunder. 
I have answered your jangling of jays in my 2. book. Cap. 27.  Fulke. 
And I have confuted your babbling of Eagles in the same place.  jewel. 
Saint Jerome saith, Let us go up with the Lord (into heaven) into that great parlour, and receive of him above, the cup of the new testament.  Saunder. 
He saith not into heaven, but into the great parlour, which is the kingdom of the Church.  Fulke. 
But by the great parlour, into which Christ is ascended, he meaneth heaven, where the kingdom of the Church is, and not the earth, where the Church is a stranger: the word heaven is added in Master jewel for explication, and not as part of Ieromes words.  Saunder. 
Chrysostom interpreteth, the parlour for the Church, in Matth. Hom. 38.  Fulke. 
Chrysostom was no interpreter of Jerome. In allegories, every man hath his own invention.  Saunder. 
Christ giveth his body and blood, he is the feastmaker and the feast, he gave that Moses could not give.  Fulke. 
All is performed in the great parlour, which is heaven. We must receive of him above the cup of the new testament.  jewel. 
Cyrillus saith: Our Sacrament avoucheth not the eating of a man, leaving the minds of the faithful in ungodly manner to gross or fleshly cogitations.  Saunder. 
Cyrillus against Nestorius, denieth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man, not assumpted into God. I have spoken more, lib. 2. Cap. 25.  Fulke. 
Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the eating of a man, and not only the eating of such a man, as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be, See lib. 2. Cap. 25.  Saunder. 
Cyril saith, that Christ setteth before us the assumpted flesh of the son man.  Fulke. 
Yea, but not in the Sacrament only, but as it was eaten of the fathers. Ad Theod. de rect. fide.  Saunder. 
He saith moreover, the word is not able to be eaten. What, M. jewel? not by faith? yes verily, but not by mouth, but according to the dispensation of the union.  Fulke. 
God the word is not able to be eaten by faith, but in respect of the dispensative union. Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth: for the properties of both natures remain to be seen of us by innumerable reasons, as it followeth immediately. Grant eating of his flesh by mouth, and the property of the human nature is clean overthrown. Your charging of master jewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserveth none answer.  jewel. 
The old fathers, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, acknowledge God's omnipotency in baptism, yet is not Christ really there. Therefore it was vain labour to allege his omnipotency for the real presence.  Saunder. 
Baptism hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ, therefore you have lost your labour.  Fulke. 
Baptism hath promise to wash us in the blood of Christ, to incorporate us into Christ, to make us partakers of his death, burial, & resurrection, Rom. 6. and yet no real presence required, no, not of the holy ghost, otherwise than by effectual grace, working our regeneration and new birth. Yea, Christ doth wash us in baptism. Ep. 5.   

CAP. VIII.  Saunder. 
Whether the Catholics or Sacramentaries expound more unproperly or inconveniently, the words belonging to Christ's supper.  Harding. 
Because these places report, that Christ gave at his supper his very body, the fathers say, it is really in the Sacrament.  jewel. 
A thing is taken to make proof, which is doubtfll, and the antecedent is unproved.  Saunder. 
Said not Christ, take, eat, this is my body?  Fulke. 
This proveth not, that he gave it in your sense. But where do the fathers say, it is really present in the Sacrament?  jewel. 
The fathers call the Sacrament a figure, a token, a sign, an image, etc. Therefore Christ's words may be taken with a metaphor, trope, or figure.  Saunder. 
It standeth well together to be a sign & the truth: As Christ is the image of God, & yet God also.  Fulke. 
It is impossible to be a sign & the thing signified. Neither is Christ God the Father, of whom he is the image, although he be God.  jewel. 
Even Duns saw, that following the bare letter, we must needs say, that the bread itself is Christ's body.  Saunder. 
The place is not quoted, therefore it is doubtful: for no man believeth you.  Fulke. 
Look in the fourth book upon the sentences. The same affirmeth O●kam, Quodlibet 4. quest. 30. Contrarium illius non habetur ex canone Bibliae. etc. The contrary of that opinion, that bread should remain, is not had out of the canon of the Bible, etc.  jewel. 
So the words stand, This (BREAD) is my body. Saunder. where stand they so? in your gospel, but not in ours.  Fulke. 
A foolish cavil the word, bread, is added for explication, & by parenthesis showed not to be of the text.  jewel. 
They say (this) meant not bread, but one certain thing in general.  Saunder. 
I have showed how it is taken, lib. 4. Ca 4. 5. & 6. Neither doth it signify in general, but that which is contained under the form of bread.  Fulke. 
Who could tell, that you would renounce individium vagum? and what is contained but bread, before the words of consecration be all spoken? jewel. Est, they expound, erit, it shallbe. Saunder. you delight in falsehood. Christ chose this word est, because it signifieth a most present being of a thing: for God worketh in a moment.  Fulke. 
Then the words make not the body of Christ, as all other Papists say. For the words cannot be uttered in a moment.  jewel. 
Erit, they expound the substance of this uncertain general, one thing that shall be changed.  Saunder. 
These interpretations be false.  Fulke. 
They be the interpretations of all Papists except Saunder, who also saith, That which was bread before he spoke, was his body at the end of his speech. But what was it in the mean time, while he was in speaking, and said, est it is?  jewel. 
It is given, they expound, it shallbe given.  Saunder. 
We expound it of the present unblody sacrifice.  Fulke. 
Harding, against whom master jewel writeth, expoundeth it of the passion. Neither can it be both, as you say, but is in deed meant of the passion only, but yet figuratively: seeing Christ said of his blood which is shed, which cannot be understood of your unbloody sacrifice, nor of the bloody sacrifice of Christ, without a figure.  jewel. 
Do ye this, ye expound, sacrifice ye this.  Saunder. 
Nay sir, we control your false translation: for Hoc facite is make this my body. Of the making of the sacrificed substance, I have spoken. li. 4. Cap. 13.  Fulke. 
Saunder controlleth the greatest Papists that ever were before him, in his new-found translation.  jewel. 
This bread, they expound, this that was bread.  Saunder. 
You should name the place.  Fulke. 
A weak answer: the place is 1. Cor. 11.  jewel. 
These verbs: He took, he blessed, he broke, he gave, stand together and rule one case.  Saunder. 
They stand together in order of writing, but not in order of doing.  Fulke. 
They rule a case, according to the order of writing, and not after the order of doing.  Saunder. 
If the words of consecration were spoken before the breaking, what wonder ye, if the thing that was taken, being changed, we change the construction of verbs?  Fulke. 
If the holy ghost have set it down otherwise, you shall have much to do to prove it: if any thing be changed, you must give us another accusative case, then panem, and not change the construction of verbs.  jewel. 
He took bread, he blessed it away.  Sand. 
He changed it into a better thing.  Fulke. 
By blessing? or by saying, This is my body?  Sand. 
God bless me from such a man, who scoffeth at the holy mysteries.  Fulke. 
Nay, he derideth your bald interpretations.  jewel. 
He broke the Accidents.  Sand. 
That is true.  Fulke. 
Accidents cannot be broken, except the substance whereof they be accidents, be broken.  jewel. 
He gave his body.  Sand. 
We believe it to be a meeter gift, then to give common bread.  Fulke. 
Who saith he gave common bread?  jewel. 
Upon these few words of Christ, thus many figures and more, they have imagined.  Sand. 
They be not all the words of Christ, but some are the words of the Evangelists. The words of Christ are all proper, but you have many more figures and absurdities.  Fulke. 
They be all the words of God, and if the words of Christ be all proper, what need so unproper expositions of them? But now let us hear no less than 41. figures and absurdities, maintained by Protestants.  Sand. 
First, you join together, this bread.  Fulke. 
In translation we do not, but in sense we may, when Saint Paul saith of that which is the body of Christ, this bread.  Sand. 
2. You have done it against the Gospel, for Hoc is the neuter gender, panis the masculine.  Fulke. 
We have not done it against the Epistle, following saint Paul, who I hope, was no enemy of the Gospel.  Sand. 
3 You have irerated the same fault, in joining hic to vinum.  Fulke. 
We join it none otherwise then Saint Paul joined, This cup.  Sand. 
4. You have divided the pronoun hoc from the body and blood, with which substantives only it may agree.  Fulke. 
Hoc is an adjective in the neuter gender taken substantively.  Sand. 
5. You expound the pronoun, sometime for bread, sometime for body, as when you make the laying to be words of promise.  Fulke. 
It is still bread: for Christ promiseth by that sacrament of bread, to give his body.  Saunder. 
6. You expound est for significat, when it standeth not between two several natures.  Fulke. 
The body of Christ and bread which is demonstrated by hoc, are two several natures.  Sand. 
7. You take the same verb est properly referring i● to the body of Christ, which in every man's heart you consecrate by preaching these words, This is my body, as Caluine teacheth.  Fulke. 
You belie Caluine, and prate you wots not what. The verb changeth not his signification, for the bread signifieth Christ, which is spiritually given to us.  Sand. 
8. Some other will have the verb est to stand properly, and the bread to be a sign.  Fulke. 
A fond cavil, all cometh to one reckoning, the bread, is a sign, and the bread signifieth.  Sand. 
9 In the words of the cup, in Saint Luke ye supply the verb est, and then cast it out again as superfluous.  Fulke. 
A lewd cavil, answered lib. 4. circumstance 26.  Saunder. 
10 The noun body you take properly, when you take est for significat: and 11. unproperly, when est is taken properly.  Fulke. 
Childish trifling, where matter is all one. see lib. 4. Circumst. 18.  Sand. 
12 You expound the relative quoth which, so as it cannot agree with the antecedent, & the verb following.  Fulke. 
Boy's play, answered lib. 4. circumst. 18.  Sand. 
13 Datur, you expound dabitur.  Fulke. 
So doth Harding, and so it must be, as I have showed in this chapter.  Sand. 
14 You expound facere to do only, and not to make.  Fulke. 
One verb can have but one signification at one time.  Sand. 
15 You expound hoc for hic or ita in your homily, do thus.  Fulke. 
Take your action against the Printer.  Sand. 
16 In mean commemorationem, you english, in the remembrance of me, which should be, for the remembrance of me.  Fulke. 
A knot in a rush.  Sand. 
17 When you have expounded est for significat, in the consecration of the blood, hic remaineth without a substantive.  Fulke. 
A babble, answered lib. 4. circumst. 23.  Sand. 
18 In these words, this cup is the new testament in my blood, you take the noun blood for the sign of blood, and so the new testament established by the figure of blood.  Fulke. 
Ye fable, we take it properly, and these words to be a true exposition of these words, This is my blood.  Sand. 
19 If you take blood properly in these words, it must also be proper in these, This is my blood.  Fulke. 
That followeth not.  Sand. 
20 The construction of these words, This cup is shed for you, proveth that which is in the cup to be shed, which you say is wine.  Fulke. 
This cavil is answered lib. 4. circumst. 26. & 27.  Sand. 
21 In Christ's words: The bread which I will give is my flesh, you expound I have given, and I do give.  Fulke. 
Yea, I will give, as I have done, and do.  Sand. 
22 In Saint Paul (The bread which we break, is the communicating &c.) you expound signifieth the communicating. As though the jews figures, did not the same, and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs.  Fulke. 
And how can bread be the communicating of the body of Christ, but as the jews Sacraments were the same? Saint Paul showeth what our sacraments have like with theirs, & the ceremonies of the Gentiles also, & not what difference there is. You are well studied in Saint Paul.  Sand. 
23. The cup of blessing, you will have to be a cup of wine, as though the blessing wrought nothing in it.  Fulke. 
As though blessing can work nothing but transubstantiation.  Sand. 
24. You make Christ give thanks to his father, in beginning the state of the new testament, in better words than deed, for his words are, This is my body, yet you will have him to offer no body at all to his father in that thanksgiving.  Fulke. 
Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the new testament, was at the institution of the supper? Belike baptism pertained not to the state of the new testament. Secondly, how prove you that, This is my body, are words of thanksgiving or oblation to god?  Sand. 
25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadows, and to give to our mouths, less than Moses, for Manna was better than common bread.  Fulke. 
Sacraments be no shadows: Neither did Moses give Manna, but God for aught that I know. And it is most convenient, that the signs of the new testament, should be less glorious than of the old, because the doctrine is more clear.  Sand. 
26. Ye expound to be guilty of Christ's body and blood for eating, that is to say, for not eating or refusing to eat. For you teach evil men not to eat the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
For we expound guilty for eating, to be guilty for eating the Sacrament unworthily, that is in some unreverently or negligently, in some contemptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby.  Sand. 
27. You will not have Christ's supper to be an external sacrifice, and to be worse than jewish and Idolaters altars and tables, who both did sacrifice, and S. Paul compareth Christ's table with theirs.  Fulk 
We will have no more sacrifices, but the only and once offered sacrifice of Christ's death for our redemption. The repetition of sacrifice, showeth an imperfection in it, and not a betternes. Saint Paul compareth Christ's table with the altar & table of devils, not in sacrifice, but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars, & tables, which showeth what the communicating of Christ's table is, and overthroweth your carnal presence.  Sand. 
28. You expound the showing of Christ's death by a figure, whereby you show him not to be truly dead.  Fulk. 
You show it by eating him alive, whereby there is no argument of his death. We show it by preaching joined to the visible element, without which it is lame, dead, and unperfect.  Sand. 
29 Ye expound the not making difference, etc. in such sort, that he will not have the body present wherein difference is to be made.  Fulk. 
As though difference of the king's person and authority can not be made but in the king's presence.  Sand. 
30 Ye deny our union with Christ's flesh, by corporal participation, which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eve being two in one flesh.  Fulk. 
Our corporal participation, is by his incarnation, which is applied unto us by faith, through his spirit uniting us unto him, and testified in the supper.  Sand. 
31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent than Angels, by how much he hath a more excellent name, you regard not the name body and blood given to the mysteries, but affirm them to be as they were before etc.  Fulk. 
The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name, but because he hath it by inheritance, for else the Angels are named the sons of God, and princes are called Gods. You have not sought Christ in the scriptures, but the confirmation of your heresy. Again, we so much regard the name of body and blood given to the mysteries, that we believe them to be the same, that they are called after a spiritual manner, although they have not that name by inheritance but by grace, affirming in the elements, a great alteration from that they were before, not in substance, but in use and effect.  Sand. 
32 No promise in the scriptures, can be found made to him, that eateth and drinketh material bread and wine, but to him that receiveth the body and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirm bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken in the supper, beside the word of God.  Fulk. 
The promise is made in scripture, to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christ's institution, although not for eating bread and drinking wine only. This reason would prove that water is used without the word of God in baptism, because no promise is made to him that is washed in water, but to him that is washed according to Christ's institution.  Sand. 
33 Although David prophesied of eating and adoring, you will grant no meat to be externally adored.  Fulk. 
David never prophesied of adoring the sacrament.  Sand. 
34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach, that all external idolatry is taken away by the coming of Christ, you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament.  Fulk. 
The Prophets teach not that idolatry external, shall be taken away by the coming of Christ, but among true Christians, which do renounce all worshipping of idols.  Sand. 
35 Christ came to save & feed the whole man● why deny you the food of life to our bodies?  Fulk. 
We affirm, that Christ feedeth body & soul unto eternal life, without the sacrament, and with it, although the food of life be not received at the mouth like other meats, nor swallowed and digested as they are.  Sand. 
36 If in the supper we seed on Christ by faith alone, why is it called a supper, more than baptism, where also we must feed on Christ by faith?  Fulke. 
Because it is the proper sacrament of our spiritual feeding, like as baptism is of our regeneration, and yet the blood of Christ doth cleanse our sins in the supper, as we eat the body of Christ in baptism.  Sand. 
37 Seeing a figure may be the truth itself, whereof it is a figure, why should you rather detract this honour from Christ's sacrament, then give the same unto it?  Fulk. 
A figure can never be that which it figureth in the same respect: As Christ is the figure of his father, so is he not his father, as he is the figure of his father's substance, so is he not his father's substance, but consubstantial with his father; for though he be the same essence, yet he is an other person: beside that we may not say the sacraments are all that they may be, but that which God will have them to be. You may demand the like reason of Baptism, why the water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it.  Sand. 
38 Christ being equal with his father, made promise of the same flesh which his father had given. Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as real as his father gave him real flesh?  Fulk. 
We deny not, but he hath given the same real flesh, although not to be present really in the Sacrament.  Sand. 
39 How teach you the words of Christ which are spirit and life, to be notwithstanding figurative, & consequently dead and void of all life and strength?  Fulk. 
How dare you affirm, any of Christ's words, of which many are figurative, to be dead and void of life and strength? Are not those figurative words, I am the bread that came down from heaven: This cup is the new testament?  Sand. 
40 Because the word of God would be meat of man in respect of the body, he took flesh and said, Take eat, &c: yet you make him still to be the meat of the mind, whereby we are excluded from having God corporally in us, through the flesh of Christ.  Fulk. 
The word became not flesh, either only or principally to be given in the sacrament: but he could not have been meat, unto man, except he had taken flesh, which flesh he communicateth unto us, through his spirit by faith, to feedboth body and mind, yet not to be received into the body, as bodily meats, but being received of the mind, to nourish the whole man.  Sand. 
41 To conclude, whereas ye find flesh, body, blood, joined with eating, drinking, taking, partaking, giving, breaking, distributing, communicating, dijudicating, ye expound all these words figuratively. As though God by so often repeating had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them.  Fulk. 
You say untruly of all these words, & whereas you find bread, cup, the fruit of the vine, so often repeated, you understand all figuratinely to maintain your gross understanding, or rather your gainful idolatry, for which you care not to err against grammar, rhetoric Logic, Philosophy, divinity, faith, truth, nature, sense, knowledge, and conscience.  Iew. 
If in these words, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, ye follow the letter, it killeth. Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit.  Sand. 
He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them, doth follow the spirit and not the letter.  Fulk. 
Ye assume for granted, that which is all the controversy. It is not only the letter, to understand the words of eating by piece meal, but of eating his flesh by mouth carnally, as other meats are eaten, although covered from the eyes and taste, as men eat pills wrapped in a wafer cake.   

CAP. IX.  Sand. 
A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master jewel.  Iew. 
Saint Augustine saith, the sacrament of Christ's body, after a certain phrase or manner, or trope or figure of speaking, is the body of Christ.  Sand. 
Secundum quendam modum, is not meant after a certain manner of tropical or figurative speech, but in the sacrament, in the thing itself, in the substance thereof, wherein the likeness is and not in the form.  Fulk. 
Saint Augustine's words being set down more at large, than Saunder citeth them, who leaveth out the foremost part, let the reader judge, whether he mean of a manner of speech which is figurative and tropical, or of a manner of being which is significative. Ep. 23. Bonifacio, Nempe saepè ita loquimur etc. Verily, oftentimes we SPEAK so, that we SAY Easter drawing near, to morrow or the next day is the passion of our Lord, whereas he hath suffered so many years past, and that passion was promised but once in all. Verily, on the sunday itself, we SAY this day our Lord arose again, notwithstanding there are so many years since he arose. Why, is no man so foolish to reprove us so SPEAKING as if we had lied? but because we CALL these days according to the similitude of the days, in which those things were done, that it is SAID, the day itself, which is not the day itself, but in revolution of time like it: that it is SAID to be done on that day, because of the celebration of the sacrament (or mystery) which was not done that day, but long before. Was not Christ once offered in himself, and yet in a sacrament? not only at every solemnity of Easter, but every day he is offered for the people. Neither surely doth he lie, who being demanded, shall answer, that he is offered. For if the sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things, whereof they are sacraments, they were not at all sacraments. Out of this likeness also, for the most part they take their names. Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith. The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech, that are figurative, and this example of the lords supper being brought as one of them: judge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master jewel. Even the Canon law written (as it should seem) before the heresy of carnal presence prevailed, doth so understand this place of Augustine. de Con. Dist. 2. ca Hoc est. Sicut ergo coelestis panis, etc. Therefore as the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, (that is, saith the gloss, the heavenly sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ) after his manner, is called the body of Christ (the sense is, saith the gloss, it is called, that is, it signifieth the body of Christ) whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which being visible; which being palpable was put on the cross, and the very immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, crucifying of Christ, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the sacrament of faith, which is understood to be baptism, is faith. Let this exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Saunder maketh, & ●ee which is more Catholic.   

CAP. X.  Sand. 
The signification of adverbs discussed.  Hard. 
By these words really, substantially, etc. The fathers meant only a truth of being and not a mean of being after carnal, or natural wise.  Iew. 
All adverbs taken of nouns, signify evermore a quality, and never the substance.  Sand. 
An adverb hath his name, because it is joined to the verb, and it doth make plain and fill up the signification thereof, which if it signify a substance, the adverb doth make it to signify the same substance more perfectly. As, Your God is verily the God of Gods. This man was verily the son of God.  Fulk. 
The adverb verily toucheth not the substance, but the manner of truth, which is a quality.  Sand. 
Christ walked corporally upon the water, that is, in truth of a man's body, but not in any such accustomed manner, as other men's bodies are wont to walk.  Fulk. 
Yes verily, he walked upon the water, as other men walked on the dry land, giving strength to the water to bear him, not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peter's body was changed, who walked likewise on the water.  Sand. 
The manner of the walking, did exceed the manner of a mere natural body.  Fulk. 
Then belike Peter had not a mere natural body.  Hard. 
When the fathers teach Christ to be in us carnally, corporally, or naturally, (for all these terms, Saint Hilary, and S. Cyril have) than they mean, that Christ is in us, by the true substance of his flesh, and not in such manner, as common flesh is wont to be any where.  jewel. 
The father's mean, that Christ is in us after a corporal, carnal, and natural manner, and not in substance.  Fulke. 
Yea after some kind of corporal etc. manner, that is truly, sound, and not shadowedly, effectually, etc. not after every corporal, carnal, or natural manner.  Sand. 
The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in us without the substance of his body and blood.  Fulke. 
But the general qualities of a body, of flesh, etc. may be in us, as in their subject, without the proper subject of Christ's body and blood.  Sand. 
S. Hilary saith: Christ hath the father in him, according to the spirit naturally. Hath Christ a quality, and not the whole true substance?  Fulk. 
The question is not what he hath, but what he hath by force of the adverb naturally, which is not of force to give him the whole substance, but signify that he hath it after the manner of nature, which is truly.  Sand. 
Hilary saith, he tarrieth in us naturally.  Fulk. 
That is truly, which is some manner of natural being.  Sand. 
He saith further: he is in us himself by flesh.  Fulk. 
Which he took of us, and doth again give unto us.  Sand. 
And again, Naturally, according to the flesh, we live by him, that is to say, we have obtained the nature of his flesh.  Fulk. 
I ask no better interpreter than Hilary himself. Whosoever liveth by him, hath obtained the nature of his flesh, which is able to give life, but many live by him which hath not received the supper, therefore Hilary speaketh not of giving the substance of his flesh in the supper, as Saunder understandeth, but of giving the nature of his flesh, which is power of life, confirmed to us by the sacraments of his supper and baptism.   

CAP. XI.  Sand. 
Of the first author of the sacramentary heresy.  Hard. 
Berengarius began first openly to show the sacramentary heresy, touching the verity of Christ's body in the sacrament.  Iew. 
Before, master Harding said, the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresy, and so his tales hang not together.  Sand. 
The Messalians began privily, by general disgracing the sacrament: Berengarius begins openly, by special denying the virtue thereof.  Fulk. 
The Messalians spoke as openly as Berengarius, and he that utterly denieth the sacrament to be of any virtue, taketh away the special virtue also: wherefore Harding'S tales agree not: but that is a small matter.  Iew. 
joannes Scotus and Bertram, maintained the same doctrine before Be●●ngarius.  Sand. 
If they barked in corners, at any ceremony, (which is not evident to us) yet they maintained it not. For than they had been condemned of heresy, & by them you have gained little more than 200. years.  Fulke. 
They preached and wrote openly, the one of them dedicating his book to the Emperor, which is extant: the other condemned in the Council of vercels holden against Berengarius. But while they lived, their doctrine therein was not controlled. Two hundredth years is small gain to us, which count from the beginning, but it is great loss to you, that build upon antiquity, not regarding how it came from the beginning.  jewel. 
It shallbe necessary to open Berengarius judgement.  Sand. 
It is enough, you are at a stay, and can bring your faith no higher than joannes Scotus and Berengarius.  Fulke. 
We begin at Christ, and bring down the continuance of our faith herein, for 600. years and more, which you cannot impugn.  jewel. 
This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius. I believe that the body of our Lord jesus Christ, sensibly and in very deed, is touched with the hand of the Priest, and broken and rend, and ground with the teeth of the faithful.  Sand. 
You have Englished the words very spitefully, you have added Rent, of your own head. Atteri doth signify to be broken in pieces, or to be wasted, which may be done without grinding.  Fulk. 
What great spite is in Rent, more than in Broken? and why should alteri signify to be broken, when we had the word broken before? and what honesty is it for you to say, the body of Christ may be wasted with the teeth? Finally, when you have dentibus halteri. I marvel why you dare not say, ground, except it be, that you teach the people to swallow the cake, and not to grind it with their teeth.  jewel. 
The very gloss saith: unless you warily understand these words of Berengarius, you will fall into a greater heresy than ever he held any.  Sand. 
The gloss telleth you, that all touching breaking, or washing, is to be referred to the forms of bread and wine.  Fulke. 
Then the confession of Berengarius was false, that the body is touched, broken, grinded with teeth.  jewel. 
These father's redress the less error by the greater.  Sand. 
They teach him to speak as Chrysostom hath spoken, in joan. Hom. 45. Non se &c: Christ permitteth himself not only to be seen, to them that desire, but also to be touched, and to be eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, & all men to be filled with desire of him.  Fulke. 
Chrysostom speaketh figuratively, except you will say it is a proper speech, that Christ is seen in the Sacrament. These fathers abhor all figurative speeches in this case, and it is nothing like, that a recantation of a figurative understanding, should be expressed by figurative words.  jewel. 
That M. Harding calleth the catholic faith, is in deed a catholic error.  Sand. 
No error can be catholic: because Christ said, Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church, and it is a city built upon an hill.  Fulke. 
And yet all nations are made drunk with the fury of the wine of the whore of Babylon's fornication. Wherefore an error may be catholic, although not simply, yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime do embrace the truth.   

CAP. XII.  Sand. 
Of Christ's glorified body, and the place of S. Jerome expounded.  Hard. 
The body which was before the death thereof thrall and frail, is now spiritual.  jewel. 
To what end allegeth Master Harding the spiritual state of Christ's body? Enriches said it was changed into the very substance of God, which heresy is like Master Hardings, if it be not the same.  Sand. 
The defence of the real presence, is directly against that heresy.  Fulke. 
To grant the flesh of Christ in word and to deny the essential properties thereof, is to come as near to that heresy as can be.  Sand. 
The ancient fathers proved, that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things, the sign or form of bread, and of the body of Christ, so Christ consists of two natures, the one divine, the other human. Wherefore you denying the presence, agree with the Arrians, Valentinians, etc.  Fulke. 
The ancient fathers, never made the form or accidents of bread, but bread itself, to be the sign, or one part of the sacrament, representing the body of Christ, and the thing signified, they made like to the godhead, whereby they understood not the natural body of Christ, but the effect of his death.  Hard. 
S. Jerome showing two ways of understanding Christ's flesh, one spiritual (as it is verily meat) an other as it was crucified, declareth the manner of eating it only, to differ from the manner of it being crucified, the substance being all one.  jewel. 
He speaketh neither of the Sacrament, nor of any real presence.  Sand. 
He meaneth both.  Fulk. 
He can mean neither of both, seeing he distinguisheth that divine and spiritual flesh, which is meat in deed unto eternal life, from that flesh which was crucified, which if it were meat in the same sense, that it was crucified, that is in the natural substance: S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which &c. and that flesh which &c. but of the effects and affects of the same flesh. Wherefore when he saith, the flesh of Christ is two ways to be understanded, he meaneth of this word, The flesh of Christ, and not of the diverse manners of presence thereof in the sacrament, and on the cross.  jewel. 
S. Hierom saith: of this oblation which is marvelously made in the remembrance of Christ, it is lawful to eat, but of that oblation which Christ offered upon the altar of the cross, according to itself, it is lawful for no man to eat, that is to say, in gross and fleshly manner. These words show a difference between the sacrifice made in the remembrance of Christ, and the very sacrifice in deed etc.  Sand. 
The difference is so great, that the thing offered is all one, and that which is crucified and eaten, is the same in substance, but not in manner of presence.  Fulke. 
The difference is so great, as must needs be between a sacrifice once offered and never to be repeated, and the memorial of the same. The same substance that was crucified, is eaten, but not by means of any bodily presence, but by a spiritual kind or manner of eating by faith.  Sand. 
What marvelous making can you find in the bread and wine, except they be made the body and blood of Christ?  Fulke. 
It is a marvelous thing, that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiver in earth, the communication of the body and blood of Christ sitting in heaven.  jewel. 
If a man take it fleshly, saith Chrysostom in joan. Hom. 47, he gaineth nothing.  Sand. 
It followeth immediately: What say we then? is not flesh, flesh? He understandeth fleshly, that deviseth a gross and fleshly manner of eating, but not he, that saith the flesh must be eaten, if the manner be divine and spiritual, as in our sacrament.  Fulke. 
The manner you teach is gross and carnal, for spiritual eating we confess, which is not only in the sacrament.  jewel. 
It is a figure or form of speech (saith S. Augustine) willing us to be partakers of Christ's passion.  Sand. 
You are taken M. jewel. For seeing you say, we eat Christ in the supper only by faith, and we must be partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest: how saith S. Jerome, we may not eat that oblation which Christ offered on the cross according to itself, may we not believe in him? etc.  Fulke. 
In the sacrament we eat bread, which is the oblation marvelously made in the remembrance of Christ, we eat not that, which was sacrificed on the cross in the real substance thereof, but by faith applying unto us the fruits and effects of his passion.  jewel. 
S. Jerome calleth the eating of the divine & spiritual flesh of Christ, the remembering that he died for us.  Saunder. 
Then the oblation itself is eaten of us, which he offered on the cross, according to itself.  Fulke. 
What mad man would say, the oblation itself, & the remembrance thereof to be all one?  jewel. 
Clemens Alexandrinus saith: there is a fleshly blood, wherewith we are redeemed, & a spiritual, wherewith we are anointed. And this is to drink the blood of Christ, to be partaker of his immortality: As Christ's blood is not really present to anoint us, so it is not really present to nourish us.  Saunder. 
Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christ's blood: Hierom of the carnal blood itself.  Fulke. 
A monstrous shift, when Hierom distinguisheth in express words, the spiritual and divine blood, by which we are nourished, from the carnal blood that was shed with the spear, by which we are redeemed: Wherefore he speaketh of the effect & fruit as well as Clemens.  Saunder. 
That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament, it is proved, because he citeth such words out of S. john, as all the fathers, reasons, scriptures, prove to appertain by way of promise to the supper, as I have proved in twenty chapters together of my third book.  Fulke. 
His citing of words out of the sixth of Saint john, prove no more, then drinking of the blood of Christ, etc. in Clemens that he speaketh of the Sacrament. Your twenty Chapters are answered in as many by me.  jewel. 
Saint Augustine saith: judas betrayed Christ carnal, thou hast betrayed Christ spiritual. For in thy fury, thou betrayest the holy gospel, to be burned with wicked fire. These words of Clement and Augustine, agreeing so near in sense and phrase with the words of Hierom, may stand for sufficient exposition to the same.  Saunder. 
Augustine taketh Christ spiritual another way, clean diverse from Clement, or Saint Jerome. The name of spiritual, may be taken as many ways, at spiritus, which is for God, the holy ghost, Christ, Angels, wind, gifts spiritual, the soul, the imagination, breath, anger, or punishment, and many other ways.  Fulke. 
So many ways of taking as you know, yet you cannot tell any other, then as Clemens and Hierom take it, for that which hath not the substance, but the grace and effect of Christ.  Saunder. 
That which you bring out of Athanasius, appertaineth to the Capernaits, and to no man else.  Fulke. 
Yes, to as many as err grossly, like the Capernaites, as you Papists doc.  Harding. 
The fathers used the words really, substantially, etc. to put away all doubt, of the being of Christ's very body in the holy mysteries.  jewel. 
He divineth what they mean, before they speak.  Saunder. 
Nay, because he is sure of their words, he expoundeth their mind.  Fulke. 
He is so sure of their words, that he knoweth not where they are written, nor you neither. Being so often called for, and so much bragged of, bring them out for shame.   

CAP. XIII.  Saunder. 
A place of Chrysostom expounded.  jewel. 
Chrysostom saith in the same homily, If Christ died not, whose sign and token is this sacrifice? therefore he may be also charged with the sacramentary quarrel.  Saunder. 
You prove a sign here, but not that the truth is absent from the sign.  Fulke. 
The Sacrament is a sign: ergo, not the thing signified, a relatis.  Saunder. 
The sacrifice of the new testament, is the body of Christ, this is the sacrifice of the new testament, therefore it is the body of Christ.  Fulke. 
The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatory of the new Testament, but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spiritual Sacrifice of thanksgiving, as prayer, alms, preaching, unto which is no real presence required. Your syllogism is all of particulars, make the mayor universal, and the error is soon espied. Every Sacrifice of the new Testament, is the body of Christ.  Saunder. 
Chrysostom there saith, that Martion, Valentinus, Manichaeus, (who denied Christ's real flesh and death) are confounded by these mysteries. How can that be, if the true flesh of Christ be not contained in them?  Fulke. 
Very well, as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure, to the thing figured. The Sacrament could not be a figure of Christ's body, except Christ had a body in deed. For a void thing, that is a phantasm, can have no figure.  Saunder. 
Chrysostom saith: it is evident by these mysteries, that Christ is already sacrificed, which cannot be true, if his real flesh be not present, of which point I have spoken in my fift book, Cap. 1.  Fulke. 
And in the same place, I have answered the vanity of your argument.  jewel. 
Master Harding knoweth, that Chrysostom speaketh generally of all other mysteries, for it followeth: Even so in baptism, the water is a thing sensible, the regeneration is a thing spiritual: wherefore, if M. Harding will force his real presence in the one Sacrament, he must likewise force the same in the other.  Saunder. 
D. Harding brought that place only to show, that the body of Christ is not visibly present.  Fulke. 
The place proveth, that the body of Christ is none otherwise present, than regeneration in baptism.  Saunder. 
In baptism, the grace of regeneration which is given, is contained and given, when the word cometh to the water.  Fulke. 
The water is no subject, for the grace of God, & yet Chrysost, saith, not the grace, but regeneration itself. Nothing is borne again, but the party baptised, therefore regeneration is not contained in the element or action of baptism.   

CAP. XIIII.  Saunder. 
The difference between baptism and our Lord's supper.  jewel. 
Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force: I will touch, what the fathers think of gods working in baptism. The fathers in the Council of Nice, bid us think, that the water is full of heavenly fire etc. Basil, the kingdom of heaven is set open, Chrysostom, God himself in baptism by his invisible power, holdeth thy head. Ambrose, In the water is the grace of Christ, and the presence of the Trinity. Bernard, Let us be washed in his blood. etc. By force of which words M. Hard. may prove, that the power of God, the heavenly fire, the grace & blood of Christ, is really present in baptism.  Saunder. 
Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament, except it be signified present, in the words instituted by Christ, which make the Sacrament, or of necessity be inferred upon them.  Fulke. 
Neither is all that really present, which is affirmed of a Sacrament, that is signified present, in the words instituted by Christ, which make the Sacrament: As Christ said, This is my body, so he said, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: yet it followeth not, that the new Testament is really present in the cup, no nor in the blood of Christ, which he shed for us, but is confirmed by it, and signified by the other.  Saunder. 
Baptism & the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other.  Fulke. 
If they had no differences, they should be all one, yet have they not so many as you make. But in the matter in question, they have like force, to unite us to Christ, and assure us of eternal life, which none can have but they that eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ: or else, what becometh of them that are baptised, and not admitted to the communion?   

CAP. XV.  Saunder. 
M. jewel replieth not well, touching the authority alleged out of the Nicen Council.  Harding 
We behold (saith the Council of Nice) the lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, put or laid on that holy table, & we receive his precious body and blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily & in deed, which is to say, really.  jewel. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in the Greek, nor in Tunstall, but devised by M. Harding.  Saunder. 
It is found in the acts of the Council, that are not all printed, but they are extant in diverse Libraries.  Fulke. 
You name none, where we should find them, to try your truth and the antiquity of those copies.  Saunder. 
In many Latin printed books, it is translated s●●m, situated or put.  Fulke. 
The question is not what some Latin copies have, but what is the original Greek.  jewel. 
Must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to be set or placed, needs sound a real presence?  Saunder. 
Can you have a capon set and placed upon your table, which is not really present?  Fulke. 
A fit comparison, between a capon and the lamb of God.  jewel. 
Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith, and yet not really.  Saunder. 
The lamb of God is not said to be on the holy table, by faith, but to be set or laid there.  Fulke. 
How can the Council say, We behold it set there, but by faith?  jewel. 
S. Hierom saith: as often as we enter into the sepulchre, we see our Saviour lying in his shroode, yet he lay not there really.  Saunder. 
But he lay there once really. How could the Council say, we behold the lamb of God placed upon the holy table, which neither now, nor at any time was really there?  Fulke. 
By faith: as we behold him in his ministers, and in baptism, washing our sins with his blood, where he is not really present, nor ever was, after that manner.  jewel. 
In the Council of Chalcedon, it is demanded, in what scripture lie these two natures of Christ, it is the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet they lie not really in the scriptures.  Saunder. 
The heretic asked for very material and real words.  Fulke. 
If the natures may be said figuratively to lie, where the words are found: why may not the lamb of God be said to lie, where the bread and wine, which are signs of him, do lie?  jewel. 
That word signifieth a natural situation of place, & order of parts: such as D. Harding in the next article, saith Christ's body hath not in the sacrament.  Saunder. 
It hath such situation as the form of bread requireth.  Fulke. 
Then the form of bread is situated, & not the body of Christ, or the lamb of God, which you might as well urge to be taken in his proper sense, for a natural lamb, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be laid.  jewel. 
The Council is plain, that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before us.  Saunder. 
He considereth them basely, who saith, they remain still in earthly substance.  Fulke. 
He considereth them not at all, who saith, they are no part of the Sacrament.  jewel. 
It is said, lift up your hearts: so that there is nothing in the action to be considered, but only Christ.  Saunder. 
I have spoken of this matter at large, lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles, Cap. 27.  Fulke. 
And there I have briefly answered.  jewel. 
S. Ambrose saith: it is better seen, that is not seen.  Saunder. 
Therefore, the body of Christ is better seen, than bread and wine.  Fulke. 
Who doubteth of that?  jewel. 
For the same cause S. Augustine saith: In Sacraments we must consider not what they be, but what they represent. For they are tokens of things, being one thing, and signifying another.  Saunder. 
As they be tokens, they be one thing, & signify another: and therefore the substance of Christ's body, is not his death or passion, or the unity of his Church, which thing under the form of bread it doth signify, but it is another manner of thing, to wit, a body immortal, impassable, etc.  Fulke. 
If S. Augustine had believed the Sacrament to be the immortal body of Christ, he would never have said, In Sacraments, we must not consider what they be, but always what they signify, Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22.  jewel. 
Touching our beholding of Christ in the Sacrament. S. Aug. saith: It worketh such motions in us, as if we saw our Lord himself present upon the cross.  Saunder. 
S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnity of Easter, which was kept by preaching & showing some image of Christ, & by creeping to the cross.  Fulke. 
He speaketh generally of signs; as for images and creeping to the cross, is a most impudent lie.  jewel. 
This is that Eusebius writeth, that the body might be worshipped by a mystery, & that everlasting sacrifice should live in remembrance, and be present in grace for ever: in this spiritual sort, & not fleshly, Christ is laid present upon the altar.  Saunder. 
You leave out that he saith, the oblation of the redemption should be everlasting, by which words Eusebius declareth, that the Sacrament is such a mystery, as offereth us that continual redemption, which Christ hath purchased for us.  Fulke. 
Eusebius declareth no such matter, but a memorial of the everlasting and one only sacrifice, quod semel offerebatur in pretium, which was but once offered for a price or redemption.  Saunder. 
The same Eusebius saith: the invisible priest turneth the visible creatures with his word, into the substance of his body and blood.  Fulke. 
So he saith, that man is by the workmanship of the heavenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptism: wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation, but of a spiritual mutation, such as is in baptism.  jewel. 
S. Augustine saith: you are upon the table, you are in the cup. As the people is laid upon the table, so and none otherwise, the council of Nice saith, the lamb of God is laid upon the table.  Saunder. 
What, Master jewel? is the table turned into us, as Eusebius saith, the visible creatures are turned, & c?  Fulke. 
Even such a conversion is of the bread into his body, as is of the table and cup into us, namely spiritual. For without some kind of conversion, it were not possible, that we should be on the table, and in the cup.  Saunder. 
We should not be there, if our head jesus Christ were not under the form of bread & wine, where in we are signified: but of this more, lib. 5. Cap 5.  Fulke. 
As we are there, so is our head jesus Christ, and none otherwise.  jewel. 
The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verily, by D. Harding'S judgement soundeth no less then really: But these two words, truly and fleshly, have sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spoke unto the jews, the one doth utterly exclude the other.  Saunder. 
If you take fleshly, for the substance of flesh, is is all one in speaking, to say truly and fleshly: but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh, it is not all one.  Fulke. 
The spiritual sense of eating Christ's flesh truly, in which he spoke to the jews, doth utterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh.  jewel. 
He that eateth most spiritually, eateth most truly: as Christ is the true vine, the true Manna: and we are verily one bread, and the Apostles verily the heavens. And these are the paschal feasts, wherein verily the lamb is slain.  Saunder. 
In comparison of bodily eating alone, spiritual eating is more true, and of a better sort: but a thing both eaten in body and spirit, is far more truly eaten both ways, then by one way alone.  Fulke. 
Master jewel hath well proved, that the word Truly, may well exclude fleshly, bodily, really. As for the bodily eating, is the matter in question, therefore, not to be brought in argument.  Saunder. 
When the name of any thing affirmed of Christ, appertaineth to the true nature of his manhood, which he hath assumpted, it is to be verified of him not only by a metaphor but in very deed, therefore he is man in deed, offered in deed, killed in deed, buried in deed, eaten in deed.  Fulke. 
For a man to be eaten in the shape of bread, appertaineth not to the true nature of his manhood, which he hath assumpted, therefore it is not to be verified of him, but only by a metaphor, or figurative speech, by your own rule.  jewel. 
S. Augustine utterly removeth the natural office of the body: what preparest thou thy teeth? believe, and thou hast eaten. Believing in him, is the eating of the bread of life.  Saunder. 
S. Augustine spoke these words, to the faithless jews of Capernaum: and not to Catholics.  Fulke. 
If jews become faithful, what differ they from Catholics? why should they have another manner of eating Christ, than other Catholics?  Saunder. 
S. Augustine confesseth us to receive Christ by mouth also, Hominem jesum Christum, etc. We do receive with a faithful heart and mouth, the man jesus Christ, giving his flesh unto us to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, although it may seem more horrible, to eat man's flesh then to kill it, and to drink man's blood, then to shed it. Therefore his meaning is not to remove utterly the natural office of the body, as Master jewel most impudently saith.  Fulk. 
He removeth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament, but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Saunder, which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited, speaketh of figurative sayings contra advers. leg. & proph. lib. 2. Cap. 9 Immediately before the words by him rehearsed, comparing our eating of Christ's flesh, with Christ being one flesh with his Church, and immediately after the words aforesaid concluding that figurative sayings must not be contemned. Sicut duos, etc. Even as we do know Christ and his Church, to be two in one flesh, without any obscenity against the will of these men: Even as we receive with faithful heart and mouth, the mediator of God and man, the man jesus Christ, etc. Atque in omnibus. And in all the holy scriptures, if any thing which is spoken or done figuratively, be expounded according to the rule of sound faith, of any matters or words, which are contained in the holy scriptures, let not that exposition be taken contemptuously.  Saunder. 
Said he not, for the honour of so great a Sacrament, it pleased the holy ghost, that our lords body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meats, and yet is the office of the body removed, and that utterly removed?  Fulke. 
Said he not before, it was a figurative speech, to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood? and is it then a great marvel, if the Sacrament be called by the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament? For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the body of Christ should be preferred before other things, but whether the Sacrament should be received fasting, or after meat.  
The rest of your chat, concerning the council of 8. Cardinals, compared with the conference Wittenberg, I pass over, as containing no argument touching the matters in question.   

CAP. XVI.  Saunder. 
Whether Christ's body dwell really in our 〈◊〉, by his na 〈…〉 itie.  jewel. 
Four special means there be, by every of which, Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies, not by imagination, but really, substantially, naturally, fleshly, and in deed.  Saunder. 
You had been better to have subscribed four times, than to have made an assertion so vain as this.  Fulke. 
The assertion is of the phrase, or manner o speaking, against which you cauil● most vainly.  jewel. 
Christ's body by his nativity, whereby he embraceth us, dwelleth in our bodies really, substantially, etc.  Saunder. 
If you had said by his incarnation, he dwelleth naturally in us, or we in him, that saying might have a true sense: but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies, not only naturally, but also really, etc. it seemeth to me very hard.  Fulke. 
His nativity importeth his incarnation. And what mean you by, naturally, but in the truth and real substance of his body, after a natural manner?  Saunder. 
Christ took not the common general substance of all mankind, but only the whole particular nature of man.  Fulke. 
Saunder fighteth against his own shadow, for here is no man that saith against him: and so through the whole Chapter. Whereas Master jewel defendeth the phrase of speaking, Christ's body dwelleth really, etc. in our bodies, which in some sense is true: Saunder answereth it is not true in every sense. And he dwelleth not only by his birth, whereas Master jewel affirmeth three other ways by which Christ may be said so to dwell in us.  Saunder. 
One thing I must put you in mind of. You defend that Christ's natural body may not be in many places at once, but you say now, that his body by his nativity, dwelleth really, etc. in our bodies, which dwell in many places, therefore you are against your own doctrine.  Fulke. 
So long as there be no greater contrariety, in Master jewels doctrine, it is safe enough. This is miserable sophistry, more worthy to be hissed at among boys, ●hen to be answered of learned men.  
I think there is no cobbler in Cambridge or Oxford, but he could wind himself out of this fallacia. To dwell in all men by participation of common nature, is one thing, and one whole body, to be whole in ten thousand places, is another thing.   

CAP. XVII.  Saunder. 
Whether Christ's body dwell in our bodies by faith, really or no.  Fulke. 
The question should be whether this manner of speech in some sense may not be justified.  Saunder. 
Master jewels phrase defendeth joan of Kent's heresy.  Fulke. 
If he had said, the virgin Mary conceived Christ by faith in her heart more happily, then carnally in her womb: In affirming the one, he had not denied the other, and yet he had said nothing but the truth. Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith, before his incarnation? Did they not eat and drink the body & blood of Christ by faith, before his body was conceived in the virgin's womb? If these sayings be true, the other phrase according to this sense may be defended.   

CAP. XVIII.  Saunder. 
The contradiction of M. jewel concerning Christ really dwelling in us by faith, and not really dwelling in us by faith.  Fulke. 
If the word, really, may be taken in diverse senses, what contradiction is there? when he saith, Christ dwelleth in us really by faith: the word really, is made opposite to imaginatively, figuredly, or fantastically, and signifieth Christ in deed is communicated unto us by the effects of his incarnation, death, passion, resurrection, etc. Where he saith: Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith: the word (really) is opposite to faith, which is a substance of things to be hoped fo●, which are not actually present, & signifieth that the natural substance of Christ's flesh, lieth not locally in the substance of our hearts. According to these two significations, what contradiction is there? but that you are disposed to cavil.   

CAP. XIX.  Saunder. 
Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptism, or no.  Fulke. 
This saying may be justified in the affirmative, as well as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of his supper. The diverse understanding of the word really, maketh all the controversy in this matter: M. jewel taketh it in one sense, M. Saunder in another: Not ignorantly mistaking, but wilfully & maliciously depraving M. jewels meaning, which is that Christ in deed, not fantastically or imaginatively, but truly after a wonderful manner, hath joined us both body & soul unto himself by baptism.   

CAP. XX.  Saunder. 
Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar, or no.  Fulke. 
Even as really as he dwelleth by baptism, & none otherwise.  Saunder. 
He promiseth to declare that Christ dwelleth four ways in our body really, & when he cometh to the fourth way, he spendeth all his strength to declare that Christ's body is not really dwelling in our bodies.  Fulke. 
I pity your beggarly sophistry, grounded upon the diverse taking of the word, really.   

CAP. XXI.  Saunder. 
That Christ's body is proved to be really in the Sacrament, by S. Chrysostom's words.  Harding. 
By this Sacrament (saith Chrysostom) Christ reduceth us, as it were into one lump with himself: and that not by faith only, but he maketh us his own body in deed, Re ipsa, which is no other to say, then really.  jewel. 
This place would have stand M. Harding in better steed, if Chrysostom had said: Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament, and driveth himself & it into one lump.  Saunder. 
M. jewel marketh not, that Sacrament to be of itself the real body of Christ under the forms of bread, & wine, therefore to say Christ is mingled with the sacrament, were to say, Christ is mingled with himself.  Fulke. 
Sanders best argument, is the whole matter in question: alas poor wretched beggar.  jewel. 
Neither will M. Harding say, that Christ mingleth himself with us, simply, & without figure: whereof it followeth that much less it is so in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
He meaneth, that Christ's own body is joined to ours simply without any figure of Rhetoric or Grammar, but not without a mystical figure.  Fulke. 
If he mean, that he mingleth himself with 〈◊〉 into one lump, without all figure of rhetoric, then without all figure simply, we are one lump with him, as a lump of dough is one. As for our wonderful conjunction with him, it is not that which is the figure, but the mingling into one lump, which are the words of Chrysostom.  jewel. 
It is a hot kind of speech, such as Chrysostom was much delighted with. It is a speech far passing the common sense & course of truth.  Saunder. 
I thought you would bring it to a figure of speech, but he taught it for a truth, as we shall see anon.  Fulke. 
As though an hyperbolical speech, may not be true in any sense, because it is not true in the common sense.  jewel. 
Himself thought it necessary to correct and qualify the rigour of the same speech, by these words, ut ita dicam, which is as it were, or, if I may be bold so to say.  Saunder. 
In other places he useth the term of mingling, without correction.  Fulke. 
But in the same sense that he useth it now, with correction.  Saunder. 
The correction must be referred to the similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough, whereunto he alludeth.  Fulke. 
You are welcome home to a figurative speech.  Saunder. 
What if he use no such correction or qualifying? for, as the edition of Parise doth witness, his Greek words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seipsum miscet nobis, he mingleth himself with us.  Fulke. 
If no other edition witness for the Latin translation, let the translator answer for himself.  
But his words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are most aptly translated in Latin subigit seipsum nobiscum, he kneadeth himself with us, which if it be not a figurative speech, I report me to you.  jewel. 
In such phrase Anacletus saith: the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oil.  Saunder. 
Pope Anacletus, whose Epistle you esteem, as much as your shoe sole, nameth not olcum, oil, but holy chrism.  Fulke. 
And is not your chrism, oil? Although the Epistle be counterfeit, and not worth a shoe latchet, yet the phrase is used in it by him whosoever feigned it, and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation.  jewel. 
Alexander saith, the passion of Christ must be mingled with the oblations of the Sacraments.  Saunder. 
The world goeth hard with his note book, when he flieth to these decretal Epistles, for the proof of any thing, especially for Latin phrases.  Fulke. 
And why may not your own suborned witnesses be examined, to see if they can depose any thing against your own selves, that have set up such knights of the post, as those decretal Epistles are, whom you yourself flout for their Latin phrases, which in deed can scarce keep themselves within the bonds of congruity? Master jewel hath plentifully displayed their forgery, so that he feareth not any mention of Mass, or chrism, to be found in them.  jewel. 
Nyssenus sayeth, Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghost.  Saunder. 
That saying proveth that the grace of the holy ghost, was really in S. Stephen, as Christ's body i● really mingled with our bodies.  Fulke. 
It might likewise prove, that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost, for if you take grace for the favour of God, it was not really in Stephen, but in the holy ghost himself. If the one be absured, so is the other, except it be taken figuratively.  jewel. 
Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderful conjunction which is between Christ and us, even in one person.  Saunder. 
He confesseth more than we ask, for we are not one person with Christ.  Fulke. 
Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity, nor as his humanity assumpted into the deity, maketh one person with his death, but as he is our head and the Church his body, which is the fullness of him that filleth all in all things. Where Saunder confesseth the matter, it is folly to strive for the phrase.  jewel. 
Leo saith: the body of him that is regenerate, is made the flesh of him that was crucified.  Saunder. 
Pope Leo speaketh of his mystical flesh.  Fulke. 
B. Leo speaketh of his natural flesh, but by a spiritual and mystical kind of making, such as our regeneration is.  jewel. 
S. Augustine saith: we are made Christ, etc. and both he and we are one whole man.  Saunder. 
He saith not, one whole man, but the whole man.  Fulke. 
What number is man, Master Doctor, the singular or the plural?  Saunder. 
He speaketh of a mystical body of diverse members, made up, and perfected into a whole collegiat body. But Chrysostom speaketh of Christ's joining himself to every faithful man.  Fulke. 
Saunder understandeth not the mystical body of Christ, which compareth it to a collegiat body or civil corporation, with which it hath small similitude. The scripture compareth it to a natural body, receiving life and sense from the head, Christ's joining of himself to every one of us, maketh us all one body in him.  Iew. 
As we are by baptism made Christ's flesh & Christ, in the same sense Chrysostom saith, we are made one lump with Christ, and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with us.  Sand. 
The union is made, not only by faith, but by the thing itself, which is neither water, bread nor wine, nor faith, but only the real substance of Christ's body and blood.  Fulk. 
That is not the question, but of the manner of the mingling, whether it be corporal or spiritual.  Sand. 
Chrysostom nameth changing, sacrifice, hand, mouth, tongue, seeing, touching, eating, having within us, therefore the manner of mingling must be corporal.  Fulk. 
Chrysostom nameth the hand breaking the flesh in pieces, the mouth filled with spiritual fire, the tongue made red with this wonderful blood, as you yourself confess, therefore he speaketh not properly, but figuratively of these instruments of the body which outwardly receive the sacrament of so high & holy a conjunction, the manner of working whereof is wonderful, and not done with hands, mouth, tongue, etc. of men.  Sand. 
Prove that where Christ dwelleth by faith, that such dwelling is made by the thing itself, & not by faith only.  Fulk. 
The word is be come flesh, and dwelled in us, being verily Immanuel, God with us, therefore by the thing itself, and not by faith only, he dwelleth with all the faithful.  Sand. 
Prove that we are made Christ's flesh in baptism by the body of Christ, for else the union of the sacrament will be more real.  Fulk. 
By baptism, we are buried with Christ unto death, etc. And what purgeth us in baptism, but the blood of Christ, which purgeth us from all ●innes?  San. 
Prove either that we are united to faith it self, and unto baptism itself, or else the union made in this sacrament, will far pass the joining which is in the other.  Fulk. 
We are neither united to faith, baptism, or to the Lords supper, but to Christ, by faith, and by the sacraments.  Sand. 
Here we are united to the same body, wherewith we are fed, & which we see, and touch, but there we be not united to the water, wherewith we are washed.  Fulk. 
Neither are you here united to any thing, that you see, or touch, except you will be united to bread and wine, or to the accidents of them, which only you hold remain to be seen and touched. In baptism we are united to Christ, whom we put on, with whom we die, are buried, and rise again, being washed with his blood in our souls, as our bodies are washed with clean water.  Sand. 
You say that we are made Christ by baptism: but prove that Christ is there delivered in sensible things, to your hands, to your mouth, to your tongue, so that you may have him within you, as it is done in the supper. These phrases you must prove to be verified by faith, and baptism, if you will have as real a joining made by faith or by baptism, as is made by the sacrament of the altar.  Fulk. 
Saint Augustine saith, we are made Christ. The phrases that Chrysostom useth, alluding to the external manner of participation of that sacrament, which is by hand, mouth, and tongue, are not necessary to prove, that the union made by the one sacrament, is as real as by the other, when there be phrases of equal force, as the phrases of engraffing putting on, dying, and being buried with him, washed with his blood, etc.  Iew. 
As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body of our Lord, even so the bread of idols, is the partaking of Devils: and if we eat one bread with idolaters, we are made one body with them. Primasius in 1. Cor. 10.  Sand. 
You falsify the words of Saint Paul, that which he spoke of the substance of bread, you assign to the action of breaking.  Fulke. 
You slander him, for although he use the term of breaking of bread, yet be assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking, but to the thing that is broken, as in the other part of the similitude you might see, if malice had not made you blind. Even so the bread of idols, etc.  Sand. 
Primasius took not the name of bread materially, for wheaten bread, but for all kind of meat and drink, which the idolaters used: therefore he meant the bread which we break is no material bread, but a kind of meat which Christ hath prepared for us.  Fulk. 
Primasius took bread materially, for wheaten bread, although not only for wheaten bread: Therefore he took the bread which we break for wheaten bread, for what else is broken? Again, the argument is nought, he took bread of idolaters generally for all meats by synecdoche the figure: Therefore he taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kind of meat, which is no bread at all.  
But how answer you Primasius, saying there is the same union between devils or idols, and them that eat their bread, which is between the body of Christ and Christians, which eat the bread which is broken?  
The participation of the one, cannot be bodily, ergo not the other.   

CAP. XXII.  Sand. 
It is proved, that S. Hilary thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament.  Hard. 
If the word be verily made flesh, and we receive verily, the word being flesh in our Lord's meat, how he is to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who both hath taken the nature of our flesh now inseparable to himself, in that he is borne man, and also hath mingled the nature of his own flesh, to the nature of everlastingness, under the sacrament of his flesh, to be received of us in the communion. Hil. de Trin. lib. 8.  Iew. 
Master Harding hath not hitherto found, that Christ's body is naturally or corporally in the sacrament.  Sand. 
You use many shifts, whereof this is the last, which I will now declare against your dissembling assertion.  Fulk. 
Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are feign to seek for him.  Iew. 
Against the Arrians, Hilarius reasoned thus, Christ is really joined unto the father, as unto us, but Christ is joined to us by nature, therefore Christ is joined to God the father by nature. That Christ is joined to us by nature, he proveth it thus: We are joined to Christ by faith, that is by the nature of one faith, and that is to say, naturally.  Sand. 
He falsifieth S. Hilary, for he hath not the word naturally.  Fulk. 
You slander him most impudently, for he doth expound the words of Hilary, Per unius fidei naturam, by the nature of one faith, to be all one, as if he had said, naturally.  Sand. 
S. Hilaries intent, is only to show that faithful men are one among themselves by nature of faith, and not how Christ is joined to us by that faith, which he hath not at all, for he answereth the argument of the Arrians grounded upon that place, Act. 4. of the multitude of the believers, there was one soul and one heart.  Fulk. 
As though there could be any unity of the believers among themselves, but as they are all joined in one by Christ, & Christ to them: whom blasphemously Saunder affirmeth to have had no faith from the instant of his incarnation, because his soul was illuminated with the vision of God, to whose nature it was joined in one person and where clear vision is, there is no faith saith Saunder. Not considering, that Christ did voluntarily, empty himself, of all such pretogatives of his godhead, as might hinder him to have experience of all our infirmities, except sin. And therefore S. Luke testifieth that jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, and favour with God & men. But where such clear vision is, as Sand. imagineth, there is no increase of wisdom & gods gifts. And concerning faith: read the 22. Psal. which is a prophecy of Christ, professing his constant faith, in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked, which said, he trusted in God, let him deliver him etc. Yea the Apostle to the Hebrews proveth the humanity of Christ, by this Psal. 16. (where the prophet speaketh in the person of Christ) I will put my trust in him, that is in God: yet Saunder saith, he never had faith, but more than faith. As though a greater & a more perfect faith were not faith.  jewel. 
Likewise he saith, we are joined unto Christ by the regeneration of one nature, and again: we are joined to Christ by the nature of one baptism: hereof he concludeth, therefore are we naturally joined to him.  Sand. 
S. Hilary hath not the term naturally, of our conjunction unto Christ by baptism, which term D. Harding hath found to appertain to the sacrament.  Fulke. 
A simple quarrel, to make such outcries of the term naturally, when Hilary hath terms in all reasonable men's judgements, equivalent, concluding that all Christians are one, not only by will, but also by nature, Because they are clothed with one Christ, by the nature of one baptism. And where I pray you, hath either Harding or you found that Christ's body is in the sacrament naturally, according to M. jewels challenge? will you never leave this beggarly sophistry? Harding hath found this term to appertain to the sacrament: ergo he hath answered M. jewels challenge.  jewel. 
Thus it appeareth by S. Hilary, we may have Christ naturally within us, by three other sundry means: and therefore not only (as M. Harding holdeth) by receiving of the sacrament, Like as Christ is naturally corporally, and carnally in us by faith, by regeneration, and by baptism: even so and none otherwise, he is in us, by the sacrament of his body.  Sand. 
It is not confessed, that Christ is in us naturally, etc.  Fulke. 
But it is proved, that by nature we are one with him: But that Christ should be corporally in our bodies, Hilary saith neither of faith, baptism, nor of the supper.  Sand. 
You distinguish regeneration from baptism, as though baptism were not the sacrament that did regenerate.  Fulke. 
He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect, as you make it, or the sign from the thing signified, as Hilary meaneth, deserveth no reproof in wisemen's judgement.  Sand. 
If Christ be none otherwise in us by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptism, why do you make it a several way from the other before named?  Fulke. 
Because all these 4. several ways, may notwithstanding agree in one spiritual manner of conjunction, which hath no need of your Popish real presence.  Sand. 
The unity of Christ's birth, sufficeth not to prove that Christ is one with us, for that unity of nature, might be thought to pertain no more to the good then to the evil.  Fulke. 
There is farther required, the virtue of Christ's spirit, to make that natural unity effectual, to give us eternal life: this uniting virtue is testified by the sacrament.  Sand. 
S. Hilary doth us to understand, that in the sacrament, we take the word, made flesh, & so verily take it, as the word was verily made flesh.  Fulk. 
He expoundeth himself, saying we take it verily under a mystery, under a sacrament, which mystery is not the form bread and wine, for that is an open and sensible thing.  jewel. 
That we verily and undoubtedly receive Christ's body in the sacrament, it is neither denied, nor in question.  Sand. 
You said before, that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spiritual eating, named in S. john, which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure, & again you said, the bread is a figure, this is confuse and contrary doctrine.  Fulke. 
This is wretched wrangling. An outward sacrament which is a figure, added to spiritual eating, taketh not away spiritual eating, but helpeth our faith in spiritual eating.  Sand. 
You confessed before, that the sacrament is received with the mou●●, & now you confess that Christ's body is received in the sacrament, therefore Christ's body is received with the mouth.  Fulke. 
Your minor should be: the sacrament is Christ's body, which in your sense is not yet confessed, otherwise your syllogism is as good as this, Baptism is received on the outside of the body: the holy ghost is received in baptism: therefore the holy ghost is received on the outside of the body.  Sand. 
The adverb verily in this place doth signify naturally, really, and substantially. For as the word is made flesh really, so we take really the word being flesh in our Lord's meat. The word was not made flesh only by our faith, but in truth of his substance. Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith only, but in truth of his substance.  Fulk. 
The adverb verily in this place, signifieth truly, according to the thing, but not that according to the manner of the thing, in all points we take the flesh of Christ in the lords meat, as the same was incarnate in the Virgin's womb, but as Hilary himself saith afterward: Verè sub mysterio, We receive the flesh of his body truly, under a mystery, which excludeth naturally, or a natural manner of receiving. We eat Christ as truly, as he was made man, & borne of the Virgin Mary, but not in the same manner: we eat him not sensibly, visibly, palpably, in length, breadth, and thickness as he was made flesh, but under a mystery or sacrament of his flesh, which is communicated unto us after a spiritual manner. And where you say the word was not made flesh, only by our faith, therefore we take his flesh not by faith only. Neither is the antecedent true, nor the conclusion right. For Christ was not made flesh only by our faith, nor by our faith at all. For our faith was no mean of his incarnation. Where upon I might as rightly conclude: The word was not made flesh by our faith at all: therefore we take not the word being made flesh by faith at all. This argument is as good upon the adverb verily, used by S. Hilary, as that which you make.  jewel. 
It is the bread of the heart, hunger thou within, thirst thou within.  Sand. 
As Christ by taking real flesh, is much the better bread of the heart, & hungered within: so it is extreme madness to think that Christ's body given under the form of bread, is therefore less hungered within, or less food of the heart.  Fulke. 
If Christ had not taken real flesh, to his divine nature, he could not have been the food of eternal life to us, but there is no such necessity of giving his body in the form of bread, therefore the similitude is unlike.  jewel. 
The thing that is received in spirit, is received in deed.  Sand. 
Spiritual receiving is good and true, when it shouldreth not out real receiving.  Fulke. 
If real receiving Bee receiving in deed, spiritual receiving shouldreth not out real receiving.  jewel. 
It is an holy mystery, and an heavenly action forcing our minds up to heaven, and there teaching us to eat the body of Christ, not outwardly by the service of our bodies.  Sand. 
Is not verè sumimus, spoken of taking by the service of our bodies?  Fulke. 
As concerning the outward sacrament, but not concerning the body of Christ.  Sand. 
Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of everlastingness under a sacrament of his flesh, to be communicated unto us, which you pass over in Hilary, as you were utterly blind. The nature of Christ's flesh is I trow, real, It is communicated unto us under a sacrament which is received by the mouth: therefore the nature of Christ's flesh is received by our bodies, and not by faith alone.  Fulke. 
And is the real flesh of Christ mingled with his divinity? what can follow thereof, but confusion of the natures? If that be heretical, than the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his everlastingness, is not his real flesh, nor his real divinity, but the natural property, as he termeth it afterward, of his divine flesh, which is communicated unto us under a sacrament. As for your rotten reason, that whatsoever is received under the sacrament, is received by the mouth, because the sacrament is received with the mouth, is confuted before.  jewel. 
The truth hereof standeth not in any real presence, but as Hilarius saith, in a mystery, which is a sacrament.  Sand. 
Hilarius said, we receive verily the flesh of his body under a mystery, you report him to say, in a mystery. Is that no false dealing?  Fulke. 
It is all one before God, and all wise and honest men.  Sand. 
Well, we receive Christ verily under the sacrament, and that sacrament is by your confession also outward, and commonly called a figure: therefore we verily receive the flesh of Christ's body, under an outward figure, which is the figure of bread, although you mean the substance of bread.  Fulke. 
There is both an outward sacrament, and an inward mystery. S. Hilary speaketh of the whole dispensation of the sacrament, which is both outward and inward, and not of the sign of bread only, or principally. M. jewel never confessed that the outward figure of bread, although in some sense it be called a sacrament, yet that it is the whole sacrament.  jewel. 
Our regeneration in Baptism, in a certain bodily sort, teacheth us the purgation of the mind, as Diony sius saith: so it is in the Sacrament of Christ's body.  Sand. 
Saint Augustine saith: that must be eaten in the truth itself spiritually, which is visibly taken in the sacrament, and not one thing outwardly taken, and another thing inwardly, as M. jewel would have it. De verb. Apost. Ser. 2.  Fulk 
Are you such a buzzard, that you cannot see the opposition between eating in a Sacrament, and ea●ing in truth visibly and spiritually? I trow the real substance of Christ's body is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament, but the bread which is so called, because it is a sacrament thereof.  jewel. 
Although Christ be not bodily present, yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mystery.  Sand. 
The substance of the mystery, must needs be hindered where it is absent.  Fulke. 
Christ is not absent, although not bodily present.  Sand. 
The substance of the mystery, is the natural substance of Christ under the Sacrament. Therefore Saint Hilary saith: The natural property by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect unity. The natural property is the natural substance, for so S. Hilary useth the word proprietas, very much for the substance and personal being of God.  Fulke. 
So often that you can bring none example, but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine.  Sand. 
These words can have none other literal meaning, but this: The substance of Christ, through the form of bread, wherein unity is figured, is the sacrament of perfect unity.  Fulke. 
Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall find another literal sense more agreeable to the mind and purpose of Hilary.  Sand. 
S. Hilary saith: There is no place to doubt of the truth of flesh and blood. For now both by the profession of our Lord himself, and ●by our faith, it is flesh in deed, and blood in deed. Answer I pray you M. jewel, what is flesh in deed? what is the nominative case to est? I know none other, beside the word sacramentum etc.  Fulk. 
The more foolish Priest you. For caro, the flesh of Christ, & the blood of Christ, of whose truth we ought not to doubt, is by his profession and our faith, flesh in deed, and blood in deed.  Sand. 
It is meant by S. Hilary, of an outward thing, for he saith immediately, haec accepta these things taken and drunken, do bring to pass, that both we may be in Christ, and Christ in us.  Fulke. 
You that could construe so prettily before, do now forget your concords, for haec accepta, will not agree with sacramentum in number, that should have b●●● the nominative case to est. And what can these things being taken, have relation unto, but to the flesh and blood of Christ, which immediately before was avouched to be flesh and blood truly? which being received, maketh Christ to dwell in us, and us in Christ. The outward thing that is received, bringeth not to pass, that Christ dwelleth in them that receive it. Wherefore the flesh and blood of Christ are received inwardly, & not outwardly.  Sand. 
He saith further: Christ himself is in us by his flesh: not by the mean of bread and wine.  Fulk. 
Who saith otherwise?  Sand. 
And afterward he is believed to be in us by the mystery of the sacraments, ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente, himself tarrying naturally in us.  Fulke. 
This cannot be after the popish understanding, by which Christ tarrieth no longer in us, then the forms of bread and wine remain uncorrupted.  Sand. 
He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians: Si ergo nos etc. If then we live naturally, according to the flesh by him, that is to say having obtained the nature of his flesh, how can he but have the father naturally in himself, according to the spirit, seeing he liveth for the father? By which it appeareth, that as the substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ: So S. Hilary meant, that Christ's natural substance by means of the sacrament received, is within our own persons.  Fulke. 
Then Hilary should mean, that Christ is naturally in none, but such as receive that sacrament, and that none live naturally according to the flesh by Christ, but they that receive the communion: which is false. Therefore he meaneth that Christ's flesh is truly united to us by virtue of his spirit, which is testified in the sacrament, and not that the sacrament received, is the only mean, but the seal of our faith, which apprehendeth the working of God's spirit in this marvelous conjunction above the reach of man's reason.  Sand. 
But Hilary saith: By the Sacrament of flesh and blood, the propriety of natural communion is granted.  Fulke. 
We say and believe the same, but not only by the sacrament of the supper, but without it also.  Sand. 
And again: by the same tarrying carnally, to wit in truth of flesh, in us.  Fulke. 
But yet after a spiritual manner, according to which 〈◊〉, being once entered into us, he never departeth from us, as in the popish sense he doth, when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted.  Sand. 
last of all, the mystery of true and natural unity, is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter unitis: We being united in him corporally and inseparably.  Fulke. 
This cannot be restrained to the supper, seeing he is corporally and inseparably united to all his members, of which many never received the communion. And that which you teach men to receive in the communion, is not unseparably united to them, for it departeth as soon as the bread and wine by heat of the stomach, are putrefied according to all your schoolemens opinions. Wherefore there is no cause, why Master jewel should dissemble this point, which maketh wholly against your understanding of Christ present, naturally, corpo 〈…〉 lly, really. etc.  Iew. 
Those words, that Christ corporally, earnally, and naturally is within us, in their own rigour seem very hard.  Sand. 
They must needs seem hard to him that believeth not.  Fulk. 
Master jewel believeth them in such sense, as they were spoken & meant by Hilary, & not as you wrist them.  Iew. 
Hilarius said: we are one with God the father, & the son, not only by adoption or consent of mind, but also by nature, which according to the letter, cannot be true.  Sand. 
It is a most impudent lie forged upon S. Hilary, that we are one with God the father by nature, or with God the son in his divine nature.  Fulk. 
You are mad through malice, no man chargeth S. Hilary but with the phrase of speech, by which it is manifest, he took the words nature & naturally, otherwise than you, as appeareth even by that his general rule: Qui per eandem etc. Those that by the same thing are one, they are one by nature, and not by will only.  Iew. 
The fathers have been feign to expound, and to mollify such violent and excessive kinds of speech.  Sand. 
Now you show yourself in your colours, you think the fathers do not speak well, for violent speeches be no good speeches, & excessive speeches be not literally true.  Fulk. 
Sometime the fathers speak neither well nor truly. But these violent and excessive speeches, are well enough and good speeches, if they be well and rightly understood.  
And what if hyperbolical speeches be not literally true, are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers? Metaphors be not literally true, will you therefore say, that whatsoever is spoken by a Metaphor, is spoken untruly? This paltry is but to mock, silly unlearned Papists, of whom you have exhibition, for such as know what figures of Rhetoric mean, would think you worthy to wear a coxcomb, thus to dispute of true and false, out of Rhetorical figures.  
more than of manna literally.  Sand. 
Master jewel is mad, he is blind, full of extreme malice.  Fulk. 
Railing, in steed of words proving, that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament, or of Christ's natural dwelling in us.  Iew. 
The purpose of Gregory Nyssen, was only to speak of Christ's birth.  Sand. 
His purpose was to speak of manna, which did both signify the birth of Christ, and the sacrament of the altar.  Fulk. 
What word have you to prove, that he spoke of it, as it doth signify the sacrament of the altar?  Iew. 
In like manner of speech Saint Jerome saith: The wheat whereof the heavenly bread is made, is that of which our Lord said, my flesh is meat in deed.  Sand. 
The speech of S. Jerome, is of the sacrament, therefore the speech of Nyssenus, which you confess to be like.  Fulk. 
It is not like in scope and purpose, but in the phrase speaking of wheat.  Iew. 
And to this purpose, saith Amphilochius: unless Christ had been borne carnally, thou hadst not been borne spiritually.  Sand. 
I know not to what purpose he speaketh it, but that Christ's birth is necessary to our salvation, and because, if that birth had not gone before, we could not have eaten that body in the sacrament.  Fulk. 
You might have inferred eating spiritually, a● well as borne spiritually.  Iew. 
As Nyssen saith, Christ is made our bread: so he saith, he becometh strong meat unto the perfect, herbs unto the weak, etc.  Sand. 
He may be bread, herbs, and milk in the sacrament, and without it, but he is bread, herbs, and milk, to us in our mouths (as manna was to the jews) only in the sacrament.  Fulk. 
Where have you in Nyssen your, But he is etc. in our mouth? Is he any of this bodily?  jewel. 
Gregory Nyssen holdeth, that we receive Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament, for he saith: whoso hath abundantly drunk of the Apostles springs, hath already received whole Christ.  Saunder. 
You miss of your proof, you should prove, that he receiveth Christ's body, & you prove that he receiveth Christ. Gregory spoke of his divine nature, which may be received in our heart, & yet not his body in our body.  Fulke. 
I pray you sir, is not whole Christ, both the divinity & the humanity?  Saunder. 
If the eating of Christ prove his birth, it will follow, that as he is borne really, so much more, he is eaten really: if he were only eaten by faith: thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith.  Fulke. 
You may as well conclude, if he be eaten only under the form of bread, he was borne only under the form of bread, such strength is an D. Harding'S argument.   

CAP. XXIIII.  Saunder. 
That M. jewel hath not well answered, the places of S. Cyrillus.  Harding. 
Cyrillus saith: when the mystical blessing is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in us corporally, by receiving of Christ's body in the communion? The same thing he saith in diverse other places.  jewel. 
Cyrillus expoundeth himself: natural union is nothing else, but a true union. We are by nature the children of anger, that is in deed & truly.  Saunder. 
He saith not (it is nothing else) but, ss naturalem: If we call it a natural union, we shall call it a true union.  Fulke. 
M. jewel saith not generally, that natural is nothing but true, but with Cyril in these speeches, it is nothing but true, as he expoundeth himself.  Saunder. 
That which you said of Saint Augustine, Corporaliter, non umbraliter, sed verè & solidè: I could not find it upon the 67. Psalm.  Fulke. 
Then you sought it very negligently: for there it is written, upon the 16. verse of that Psalm, in these words, In ipso quip inhabitat omnis pl●nitudo divinitatis▪ non umbraliter, tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto, sed corporaliter, id est solidè atque veraciter. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the divinity, not shadowedly, as in the temple made by king Solomon, but corporally, that is to say, sound and truly. This exposition of the word, corporally, pleased you not, and therefore you could not find it: for, if you had read over little more than half the discourse upon the Psalm, you must needs have found it.  Saunder. 
Saith not cyril, that the mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in us?  Fulke. 
He saith, the virtue of the mystical blessing, when it is wrought in us, maketh him to dwell also corporally in us.  jewel. 
Saint Paul saith: The heathens are become concorporall, and partakers of the promise in jesus Christ.  Saunder. 
The word corporal signifieth no more, but that the jews and Gentiles are of one fellowship, but the means of making them one, remain notwithstanding to be declared.  Fulke. 
They are declared by S. Paul to be, In Christ, by the Gospel.  jewel. 
By the words corporally & naturally, a full perfect spiritual conjunction is meant, excluding all manner of fantasies.  Saunder. 
Is not that conjunction which is by faith & sincere love (whereof cyril saith, we are not only joined thereby, but quoque also corporally) a full perfect spiritual conjunction?  Fulke. 
It is not full & perfect by faith and love, except we be spiritually fed with the body & blood of Christ.  Saunder. 
If corporally be nothing else to say, but truly & without imagination: How construe you these words of S. Paul: All the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ?  Fulke. 
I construe them, as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said, which place you list not to find. And I pray you do you construe corporally so, that you understand the godhead to be a body, as in your next argument a coniugatis.  Saunder. 
How can you avoid the yoke, the dependence, the mutual respect that is between body & bodily? if bodily be truly, then corpus with M. jewel, is latin for truth.  Fulke. 
The yoke is avoided, when the adverb signifieth only a similitude unto that which is meant by the Noun: as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirit, but after the similitude or manner of a spirit. So angelicè vivere, vento●èiactare, regaliter epulari, To live like an Angel, To boast vainly like the wind, To feast like a king. etc. As for corpus, although it be not Latin for truth, yet to signify truth, sometime it is not hard to find in the scripture. S. Paul saith, The jewish feasts are umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi, the shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ: what is the sense of body here, but truth? As for Sanders fear; lest Christ's natural body might so be transformed into a truth of faith or charity, or bones without flesh, or skin without flesh or bones, is vain and foolish: yea, spiteful and malicious: for, if body, and bodily, be sometimes taken for truth, and truly, according to the circumstance of the place, it will not follow, that those words should always be so taken, where the text openly reclaimeth.  jewel. 
Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconvenience, that our body must be in like manner corporally, naturally, and fleshly in Christ's body. For Hilarius saith, We also are naturally in him. And Cyrillus, We are corporally in Christ.  Saunder. 
It is most true, during the time of the conjunction.  Fulke. 
The time of the conjunction is perpetual, for Hilary saith, We are inseparably united in him, lib. 〈◊〉. Teach your Papists, that the body of Christ is none owise in their mouth & body, than they are in the body of Christ, & you may whistle for your Popish real presence.  jewel. 
That we be thus in Christ, requireth not any corporal being.  Saunder. 
That were a fine being, M. jewel, that Christ's body should be in us corporally, yet the being should not be corporal.  Fulke. 
This is a fine wit M. Saunder, being demanded of an horsmill, to answer of a mill-horse. M. jewel would know, whether any corporal being is required, that we, I say we, should be in Christ corporally. You answer of Christ's being in us, because you cannot avoid the absurdity of our being in Christ corporally, after your corporal and carnal understanding.  jewel. 
It requireth not any local being.  Saunder. 
It is a local being, in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place, under the form of bread, which the substance of bread did occupy before.  Fulke. 
That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature. But why answer you of Christ's being in the Sacrament, when M. jewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally? I perceive your infirmity: you cannot hear on that side.  jewel. 
Christ fitting in heaven, is here in us, not by a natural, but by a spiritual mean of being.  Saunder. 
The being of Christ in us by his spirit, is also natural, concerning the nature of his godhead, which is every where.  Fulke. 
Still you take chalk for cheese. We inquire of the being of his humanity, whether it may be naturally sitting in heaven, and here with us.  jewel. 
Saint Augustine saith: After that Christ is ascended, he is in us by his spirit. And S. Basil, and again S. Augustine saith the like in diverse places. And Christ spoke in S. Paul, etc.  Saunder. 
Shall one truth always displace another with you. These be souter's arguments, Christ is God, therefore he is not man: he is in heaven, ergo he is not in earth, etc.  Fulke. 
Saint Augustine, by his ascension, and presence by his spirit, concludeth the absence of his humanity from the earth. Ascendit in Coelum, & non est hîc, he hath ascended into heaven, and he is not here, In joan. Tr. 50. This is no souters argument, except Saint Augustine be a souter, in fine Master Sanders dainty judgement.  jewel. 
This conjunction is spiritual, & therefore needeth not, neither the circumstance of place, nor corporal presence.  Saunder. 
The conjunction is spiritual, but the manner of working it, is brought to pass, by the corporal substance of Christ.  Fulke. 
The corporal substance needeth not to come unto us, that a spiritual conjunction may be made between Christ and us: the spirit of God, is the only necessary mean to make a spiritual conjunction.  jewel. 
The conjunction that is between Christ & us, neither doth mingle persons, nor unite substances: but it doth knit our affects together, and join our wills, saith S. Cyprian.  Saunder. 
S. Cyprian meaneth, we are not made consubstantial to the Trinity.  Fulke. 
He denieth the corporal manner of uniting of substances, namely of the substance of our bodies, with the substance of the body of Christ.  jewel. 
The conjunction because it is spiritual, true, full, and perfect, is expressed by this term, corporal.  Saunder. 
As though, God, because he is spiritual, true, full and perfect, he might therefore be called corporal.  Fulke. 
As though, that which is in somethings, is necessary to be in all things, and yet the Godhead, which is spiritually, truly, fully, and perfectly in Christ, is said to be in him corporally, Col. 2.  Saunder. 
Who ever heard of such vanity? because it is spiritual, it is termed corporal.  Fulke. 
Who ever heard vainer sophistry, then that which divideth things to be joined together? Master jewel addeth true, full & perfect.  jewel. 
Corporal conjunction removeth all mane● light and accidental joining.  Saunder. 
If all accidental joining be removed, only substantial joining remaineth. A substantial joining requireth the substances to be present that are joined together.  Fulke. 
The substances that are joined together after a spiritual manner, need no local presence of the substances to be joined, whom the spirit of Christ can couple, though they be in place distant, with an inseparable union.  jewel. 
It is utterly untrue, that we have Christ corporally within us, only by receiving the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
Never a father by you named, saith as you do, and therefore you speak of your own head.  Fulke. 
All the fathers that say Christ dwelleth in us corporally, speak generally of all the members of the Church, of which many have not received the Sacrament, therefore it is not by the Sacrament only.  Saunder. 
Seeing we cannot have him corporally in us, without his body be within us, and yet none other thing is his body, beside that which is delivered at his supper, by that mean only he may be corporally in us.  Fulke. 
Never a father by you named, either sayeth, or meaneth, that any of your two propositions are true, therefore your conclusion is of your own head.  jewel. 
By Master Harding'S construction, the child is damned, who dieth without receiving the Sacrament of Christ's body.  Saunder. 
No Catholic doth teach so. Baptism sussiceth until a man come to years of discretion.  Fulke. 
Ergo, Baptism maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally.  jewel. 
Without natural participation of Christ's flesh, there is no salvation.  Saunder. 
If it be so, it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receive not the eucharist.  Fulk. 
It is so, because Christ saith. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, etc. and because it is so, and yet all are not damned that receive not the Eucharist. This natural participation, & eating of the flesh of Christ, is not only in the Eucharist.  jewel. 
S. Chrysostom saith: In the Sacrament of baptism, we are made flesh of Christ's flesh, and bone of his bones.  Saunder. 
These words you have not in Chrysostom.  Fulke. 
You cavil at the form of words, (whereupon M. jewel standeth not) when you cannot avoid the matter.  Saunder. 
He saith, they that are partakers of the mysteries, can tell how they are form properly and lawfully out of him.  Fulke. 
That they are alike form out of Christ in both the Sacraments, it overthroweth your corporal presence in the one only.  Saunder. 
Moreover, he giveth another sense, expounding ex ipso, for secundum ipsum.  Fulke. 
That taketh not away the force of his authority in the former sense.  Saunder. 
He showeth, that we are taken out of Christ's side, as Eva out of Adam.  Fulke. 
If that be by baptism it proveth M. jewels proposition, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.  Saunder. 
Although it were in him, yet is it to no purpose: for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ, which may be meant of his mystical flesh, another thing to partake his flesh naturally. We are made of his flesh by spiritual means.  Fulke. 
What can it be, to partake naturally his flesh, if it be not to become flesh of his flesh, & bone of his bones? you say, we may be made of his flesh, by spiritual means: what may we be made of the matter of his flesh? Chrysostom telleth you flesh and bones: yea, of his mystical flesh. What, are we made mystical flesh? then verily we must be made mystical bones also. This is a misty exposition of so clear a matter.  Saunder. 
The reason why certain places of Scripture are interpreted, sometime of baptism, sometime of Christ's supper, is, because in the old time, in many countries, the Sacrament of Christ's body, was given strait after baptism.  Fulke. 
A wise reason, why they should make that common to both the Sacraments, which was proper to one. They were not ministered so neete in time, but they could discern what was common, what was peculiar to either of them.  jewel. 
Master Harding is not yet able to find, that Christ's body is either corporally received into our bodies, or corporally present in the Sacrament.  Saunder. 
It is you that are not able to find it: for D. Harding hath found it, and I have showed it in Chrysostom, S. Hilary, Gregory Nyssen.  Fulke. 
Let the readers judge what you have found, but vain cavillations: for, neither the words, nor the matters, you have showed.  Saunder. 
So would I show it at large out of Cyrillus, but that partly the book is grown already too great: partly, a marvelous number of places do prove both Christ's body to be corporally received into our bodies, and to be corporally present in the Sacrament.  Fulk. 
So would I answer you sufficiently, for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus, but that I have answered already in many places throughout this book to all that ever you can gather, and scrape to make a show of any such matter, which were mere tediousness here to repeat.  Harding. 
The Catholic fathers sithence Berengarius time have used the terms really, substantially, etc. to exclude metaphors and figures, and to confess a most supernatural union with Christ, by mean of his natural flesh, really though not locally present.  jewel. 
These doctors lived with in these 300. years, and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming.  Saunder. 
He named none, because your impudent proclamation, bound him to the time.  Fulke. 
He was not so bound to the time, but he might have named, if any had been of greater antiquity than 300. years.  Saunder. 
Damascen saith the bread, wine & water is supernaturally changed into the body, & blood of Christ. Theophilact saith, the bread is with secret words changed into our lords flesh, and these are above 700. years old, speaking of transubstantiation.  Fulke. 
Neither of both useth the terms really, substantially, etc. which is the matter in question. And although they use the terms of changing and transformation, yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation, nor the Church of the Grecians, whereof they were members unto this day, doth acknowledge it.  Saunder. 
Haymo, Remigius, Pascasius, Lanfrancus, Ivo, Guimundus, Anselmus, Rupertus, Algerus were all learned men, and all above 300. years old.  Fulke. 
Yet you show not where any of them, although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius, did use the terms really, substantially, etc.  Saunder. 
Bernard whom you have often alleged, writeth in servant de sanct. Martyr. Even to this day, the same flesh is exhibited to us, which the Apostles had seen in his manhood, but yet spiritually forsooth, not carnally. For there is no cause why we should say, the apparition, which was made to the fathers of the old Testament, either that presence of his flesh, which was exhibited to the Apostles, to be denied in these our days. For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shall be clear, that neither of both lacketh. For the true substance of the flesh itself is present, now also to us no doubt verily, but that it is so in the Sacrament.  Fulke. 
This testimony affirmeth, the presence of Christ's flesh spiritually, which we grant, and denieth the term carnally, which is one of the terms in question.  jewel. 
Their doctrine is without comfort. They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies, but only until the forms of bread and wine begin to alter.  Saunder. 
It is not without comfort: seeing a marvelous commodity by this touching riseth to our spirit and soul: as to those whom Christ healed by touching.  Fulke. 
They were as well healed whom he touched not, but only cured by his word. But what is become of that mingling of Christ's flesh with ours, and his inseparable dwelling corporally in us, out of Chrysostom, Hilarius and Cyrillus, Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this book? if Christ's body tarry no longer with us, where is the hope of resurrection, if the quickening▪ flesh of Christ be not still in us?  Saunder. 
Moreover I have often said: our conjunction with Christ in this Sacrament, is like the carnal copulation between the wife and husband, where twain are in one flesh, yet tarry not always corporally joined together.  Fulke. 
You have often made a shameless, beastly, and filthy comparison, between so high a mystery, and so gross and carnal copulation.  jewel. 
Some others say, that so soon as our teeth touch the bread, streightwaies Christ's body is taken up into heaven. The words be these: Certum est quòd quàm citò species dentibus teruntur, tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi.  Saunder. 
The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases.  Fulke. 
The best grace you have, is in railing and slandering.  Saunder. 
You have falsely translated the gloss, you have englished teruntur touched, and species bread. In Berengarius confession, you could term it by the word, grinded.  Fulke. 
So he could do now, if he had purposed rather to translate, then to show that writer's opinion: which according to the custom of Papists now▪ which grind not, but swallow down, there what ye call species, (for shapes I cannot name it, because other things of greater moment than shapes are in it) must be understood of touching with teeth, and not of grinding, where no grinding is: and yet if it were grinded with teeth, that grinding followeth so near the touching, that there is small difference of time between them.  jewel. 
Here a man may say unto M. Harding, as he did before to the Arrian heretic.  Saunder. 
He spoke against the heretic by the authority of Cyrillus, which taught us to be corporally joined by natural participasion to Christ, as branches are joined to the vine, and not by faith only.  Fulke. 
And even so may he speak against Master Harding, by the authority of Hilarius; which saith against the Arrians, that we are corporally & inseparably united in Christ, which is contrary to this popish doctrine of Christ's departing from us.  Saunder. 
Bring, if you can, M. jewel, a saying of above a thousand years old, by which D. Harding'S doctrine may be accused of heresy.  Fulke. 
He hath brought in his two books written against D. Harding, more them five hundred such sayings.  jewel. 
cometh Christ to us from heaven, & by & by forsaketh us?  Saunder. 
His body cometh not down from heaven, but the bread is changed into his body, as at his incarnation he came not from heaven, by forsaking his glory, but by assumpting flesh of the virgin.  Fulke. 
His godhead which filleth all places, needed no local ascending or descending. Therefore, it is ill compared with his body, which is circumscriptible, except you will become an Eutychian, and ubiquist.  Saunder. 
As after his resurrection, he ascended into heaven, so after the communion, the forms of bread & wine, being consumed, Christ ceaseth to be corporally with us.  Fulke. 
A wise similitude. The consuming of the forms of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection: the ceasing of his being corporally with us, to his ascension: But how cometh this ceasing? by a new transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ into bread and wine? or Christ forsaking the forms, by a new 〈◊〉 of substance unto them? or else are the forms left empty both of their own substance and of the substance of Christ? Against this ceasing of Christ to be corporally with us: Hilary saith, in eo nobis corporali●er & inseparabiliter unitis: We are united to him, not only corporally, but also inseparably.  jewel. 
Or, that we eat Christ, and yet receive him not, or have him not? or that he entereth not, etc.  Saunder. 
Who teacheth the contrary, but that your own shadow troubleth you?  Fulk. 
Those popish doctors, that teach that the body of Christ is ravished into heaven, as soon as the species are grinded with the teeth.  jewel. 
He saith this presence is known to God only, than it followeth. Master Harding knoweth it not.  Sand. 
He saith not this presence, but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why do you falsify his words?  Fulke. 
Would any man think, the manner of the presence should be unknown to him, which affirmeth it is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensibly? etc.  jewel. 
So this article is concluded with an ignoramus.  Sand. 
Not so, because the question is not of the manner of Christ's presence, but of his real presence, though the manner be unknown.  Fulke. 
Nay, the question is not of the real presence, which we always confess, but of the manner of presence, whether it be spiritually, or corporally.  Sand. 
A non credimus is a worse fault, than an ignoramus.  Fulke. 
It is no fault not to believe, that which scripture doth not teach.  jewel. 
The old fathers never left us in such doubts.  Sand. 
S. Cyrillus willeth us to give strong faith to the mysteries, but to leave the way & knowledge of his work unto God. The first part ye have broken.  Fulke. 
The first part we have not broken, for we believe the mysteries to be the same that Christ saith they are, but you have broken the last part, because you add really, substantially, corporally, etc. which you have not learned of Christ.  jewel. 
Emissenus saith: Christ is present by his grace.  Sand. 
You have put a false nominative case, it is victima, the oblation which is present in grace.  Fulke. 
And what is the substance of that eternal sacrifice, but Christ? for the action you confess to be utterly passed.  jewel. 
Saint Augustine saith: Christ is present in us by his spirit.  Sand. 
That is true, when he is in us by his flesh.  Fulk. 
It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present, to us after a wonderful manner.  jewel. 
You shall not eat this body that you see: it is a certain sacrament that I deliver you.  Sand. 
The words of S. Augustine are, I have commended or set forth.  Fulke. 
To commend or set forth, is to deliver in doctrine.  Sand. 
That which was commended at Capernaum, was only the same flesh which died for us, therefore that flesh must be delivered, not in a visible manner, but yet in truth of giving, by body & taking by body.  Fulke. 
That giving and taking by body, Saint Augustine denieth, in the person of Christ: ye shall not eat this body that ye see, nor drink that blood which shallbe shed: It is a sacrament or mystery which I have commended unto you, which being sp〈…〉itually understood, shall quicken you.  Sand. 
In deed M. jewel, Christ delivered his flesh as well at Capernaum, as at his supper by your doctrine. But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel.  Fulke. 
The Gospel saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except ye do eat the flesh of the son of man, and do drink his blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you have not now, life in you. Christ speaketh in the present temps. But how could they eat his flesh and drink his blood, that they might have life, except he did then deliver his flesh, as well as at his supper? For many of them might die before the institution of his supper. Again he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he which doth eat my flesh, & which doth drink my blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is verily meat, & my blood is verily drink. How was it verily meat and drink, when he spoke, if no man might eat and drink it, before his supper? Again, He which doth eat my flesh, and which doth drink my blood, doth abide in me, and I in him. How can this be verified in the present temps, so often repeated, except Christ did at that present time deliver his flesh and blood to be eaten of all that believed and offered the same to all that heard him? wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel, is agreeable to that which master jewel teacheth, and directly contrary to master Sanders doctrine, that Christ delivered not his flesh and blood to be eaten & drunken before his supper, but only promised them at Capernaum.  Iew. 
Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present, not corporally.  Sand. 
Both S. cyril and S. Hilary have the word corporally concerning the sacrament.  Fulk. 
But neither of both saith, that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally.  I 〈…〉 
Not carnally.  S 〈…〉 
S. Hilary hath the word carnally.  Fulk. 
You play mockeholiday. S. Hilary saith not, That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally.  Iew. 
No 〈…〉 rally.  Sand. 
S. ●●larie hath the term naturally, diverse times, and S. cyril calleth it natural partaking, and natural union.  Fulk. 
Neither the one, nor the other, ever said, that Christ is in the sacrament naturally. Touching the natural participation and union, it hath been showed how it may be without Christ being present, naturally, in the sacrament.  Iew. 
But as in a sacrament, by his spirit & by his grace.  Sand. 
Here appeareth what stuff you have fed the reader withal in your whole book. For partly you deny a truth, which is that Christ is not corporally present, against the express word of God, and the fathers, as I have showed.  Fulk. 
And yet neither the express word of God, nor any of the fathers, have this sentence: Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, or any thing equivalent to it.  Sand. 
Partly you prove, that your heresy by an other truth which rather establisheth than hindereth the real presence. For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace, then if he be present in his flesh.  Fulk. 
The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace, excludeth your heresy of presence corporally, and he is better present by spirit and grace, whereby he tarrieth in us for ever, then by your imagined presence of his body, in which you confess him to tarry but a short time, no not in them that receive the sacrament most worthily.  
Your conclusion being for the most part, but a repetition of such cavils, slanders, and railings, as you have used throughout the book, deserveth no several answer: partly because the greatest part of them are answered already, and partly because both they and the rest, contain nothing but general accusations, without any special argument to prove them.  
As for that you make boast that you have pr 〈…〉 every one of your books: whether I have, (a 〈…〉 ough briefly, yet sufficiently confuted or no) I commit to the judgement of indifferent readers.   
GOD BE PRAISED.