A RETENTIVE, TO STAY GOOD CHRISTIANS, IN TRUE FAITH and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristol.  
ALSO A DISCOVERY OF THE DANGEROUS ROCK OF THE POPISH Church; commended by Nicholas Saunder D. of Divinity.  
Done by William Fulke Doctor of divinity, and Master of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.  
Imprinted at London by Thomas Vautroullier for George Bishop. 1580.   

A catalogue OF ALL SUCH POPISH BOOKS EITHER ANSWERED, or to be answered, which being written in the English tongue from beyond the seas, or secretly dispersed here in England have come to our hands, since the beginning of the Queen's majesties reign.  


1 HArding against the Apology of the English Church, answered by M. jewel, Bishop of Sarum.  
2 Harding against M. jewels challenge, answered by M. jewel.  
3 Harding'S rejoinder to M. jewel, answered by M. Edward Deering.  
4 Coles quarrels against M. jewel, answered by M. jewel.  
5 Rastels return of untruths answered by M. jewel.  
6 Rastel against M. jewels challenge, answered by William Fulke.  
7 Dorman against M. jewel, answered by M. Nowell.  
8 Dormans' disproof of M. Nowel's reproof, answered by M. Nowell.  
9 The man of Chester answered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme.  
10 Sanders on the Sacrament in part answered by M. Nowell.  
11 Fecknams' Scruples, answered by M. Horn B. of Winchester.  
12 Fecknams' Apology, answered by W. Fulke.  
13 Fecknams' objections against M. Goughes' sermon, answered by M. Gough and M. Laurence Tomson.  
14 Stapletons' counterblast, answered by M. Bridges.  
15 Marshal his defence of the cross, answered by M. Caulfehill.  
16 Fowlers Psalter, answered by M. Samson.  
17 An infamous libel or letter (incerto authore) against the teachers of Gods divine providence & predestination, answered by Robert Crowley.  
18 Allens defence of Purgatory, answered by W. Fulke.  
19 Heskins parliament repealed by W. Fulke.  
20 An offer of a Catholickque, to a learned Protestant, answered by W. Fulke.  
21 Hosius of God's express word translated into English, answered by W. Fulke.  
22 Sanders rock of the popish church, undermined by W. Fulke.  
23 Sanders defence of Images answered by W. Fulk.  
24 Marshals reply to Caulfhill, answered by W. Fulk.  
25 Shaclockes pearl, answered by M. Hartwell.  
26 The hatchet of heresies, answered by M. Bartlet.  
27 M. Euans answered by himself.  
28 A defence of the private Mass, answered (by conjecture) by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincoln.  
29 Certain assertions tending to maintain the Church of Rome to be the true & Catholic Church, confuted by john Knewstub.  
30 Bristow'S motives and demands, answered by W. Fulke.  
31 Stapletons' fortress of the faith, answered by W. Fulke.    
These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering, & those which are not (by God's assistance as time will serve) shall receive their several replies. If the Papists know any not here reckoned, let them be brought to light, and they shall be examined.  


1 Sanders, upon the lords supper, partly unaunswered.  
2 Allens defence of priests authority to remit sins, and of the Church's meaning concerning indulgences.  
3 Stapletons' return of untruths.  
4 Rastells' reply.  
5 Vaux his Catechism.  
6 Canisius his Catechism translated.  
7 Frarins oration translated.  
8 john de Albynnes' discourse against heresies, en●●●hed, with an offer of a Catholic to a learned Protestant: which offer is answered under the name of Ristons' articles, by W. Fulke.  
9 Gregor. Martin's treatise of schism.  
10 Points of the Sacrament.     

A REASONABLE REQVEST AND PROTESTATION OF W. Fulke to all learned Papists.  
FOrasmuch as there is no end of writing books (as the wise man saith) and that the truth of arguments is best discerned when it is brought unto the judgement of Logic, which is the art of reasoning: If any of the learned Papists will reply against these, and other mine answers, I require that (as well for their own ease, as that I may have time to peruse them, and the readers no impediment, but that they may clearly judge of them,) they will leave of all vain discourses, and needless questions, and only conclude the controversies of religion that are between us, in the strict form of Logical arguments. If to this reasonable request they refuse to yield, I protest before God and the world, that they show themselves thereby to be enemies of the truth, that they fly the light, and dare not abide the trial.   

Faults escaped. The first number signifieth the page, the last the number of the lines.  
Pag. 12. lin. 1. Homousian r. Homoousion 13. 10. last r. lest 15. 8. Arrius r. AErius 15. 14. your r. there 15. 18. wherefore r. whereof 15. 27. recited r. revived 20. 26. judaea r. India 27. 27. virtute r. unitate 30. 24. commanded r. commended 34. 32. other r. either 36. 33. hear r. how 40. 14. circumstituantur r. circumstipantur 40. 37 audient r. audirent 42. 23. cere r. cura 44. 10. condemned r. contemned 44. 36. ca●c r. con 45. 18. true r. four 48. 37. Marcellus r. Marcellinus 55. 19 How r. Now 58. 15. persuadeth r. presupposeth 67. 38. r. in a manner depend 68 11. resisting r. receiving 68 28. and r. an 73. 1●. quaeque r. quoque 79. 29. Ripanun r. Riparium 80. 35. Babicas r. Babilas 80. 38. for r. to 81. 7. troubles r. tombs 81. 16. Reg r. ●. Reg. 13. 81. 17. laws r. bones 82. 30. verity r. unity 87. 10. cont●et r. conteret 88 2. sending r. studying 88 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 88 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 89. 14. v 11. r. 14. 90. 36. nor r. are 90. 38. r. were not better applied 92. 37. ber. 2. r. ver. 21. 25. learning r. hearing 95. 14. r. if by mass 95. 25. consecrated r. unconsecrated 96. 34. that the churches of the Britan's were of another form then those of the Romans 96. 35. Niva r. Ninia 99 18. names r. nonus 100 19 serveth r. seemeth 100 30. austerity r. authority 103. 9 apostolical r. apostatical 107. 21. all our 111. 11. save r. serve 112. 38. truly r. fond 116. 7. shall r. should 117. 36. Bzia r. Bizari 120. 23. not r. out 127. 2. man r. may 123. 5. rehearsed r. released 131. 23. do not well r. do well.   

Out of the discovery of the rock.  
Pag. 140. Lin. 25. if read that. 141. 28. or r. etc. 144. 24. fuit r. sint. 150. 14. received r. recited. 20. r. these two. 155. l. vlt. Rhetianus r. Rhetitius. 158. 2. controversy r. conversion. 159. 5. many r. men. 163. 31. vilant r. vigilant. 165. 26. this r. these. 167. 4 not r. as. l. vlt. r. which ma y. 173. 30. confirmed r. considered. 176. 24. godliness r. lordliness. 177. 34. that r. this. true r. two. 189. 6. when r. whom. l. 12. put out praise 204. 30. suiteth r. entituleth. 208. 35. offered r. before made. 228. 7. unee r. ounce. 232. 11. r that it. l. 15. Caebastinus r. Caelestinus. 233. 5. generally r. general. 236. 13. austerity r. authority. 256. 1. and r. no. 250. 32. fostered r. fastened. 247. 3. idio r. ideo. 272. 32. that r. the. 260. 3. petram r. Petrum. 276. 6. den r. doom. 279. 3. deform r. defame. 280. 14. uncertainly r. unreverently. l. 38. with r. which. 281. 4. challenge r. calling. 297. 17. Barbarita r. Borberitae. 314. 13. Cyrians r. Collyridianes.   

A RETENTIVE TO STAY GOOD CHRISTIANS IN THE TRVETH OF THE GOSPEL, WRITTEN BY W Fulke against the Motives of R. Bristol, and by him directed to his friends of the Popish Church.  
AMong such English papists, as have written within these twenty years, against the religion of God now maintained by public authority in this Realm, some have showed great wit, some much reading, some flowing eloquence, some all these indifferently: but among them all, none hath showed less wit, learning, or good utterance, than this Richard Bristol. So much the more do I marvel, when I hear that many Papists make so great account of his witless and senseless writings. But it fareth with them, as with little children, to whom new trifles seem always most worthy to be played with al. And verily I had thought of all other, lest to have dealt against this peevish prater, both because he bringeth no new matter, but such as in other of his cote, was with more colour of truth set forth before, and also for that I had already made answer to Ryshtons' challenge, which as I take it, is that table of the Church, which Bristol confesseth to contain all his demands, which demands are almost all contained in his motives. But my friends requiring me not only to answer this, but all other writings also of the papists, what soever they have set forth in the english tongue since the happy reign of our sovereign Lady, I have condescended to confute even that which deserveth no confutation, and somewhat the rather, because Bristol would have this alone to be a sufficient motive unto popery, that we having nothing to gainsay most of their popish books, have not dared, (I use his own words) once to go about the answering of most of the said Catholics books. But are feign to get them forbidden by proclamation, although ourselves have provoked confidently the Catholics to write them. whereupon also he noteth that jewels challenge is turned into proclamations, how rightly or truly, he that hath but half an eye may see. His preface to the reader, containing never an argument or motive which is not repeated either in the treatise itself of motives, or in the demands, I will pass over, and come to the first motive, gathering the principal contents out of his own table, as I have done with the rest.  
Name of Catholics. The very name of Catholics a certain mark of right Catholics. jewel unwares testifieth the Roman 
Bristol.  religion to be Catholic. La●rence Hūfr●is Trojan horse, his pseudocatholic●. Luther's consciens the Catholic Church to be against him. Ponta●us erred not whose history Humphrey himself unawars confirmeth. For Catholics (saith he) were present as lookers on and earnest defenders. What then ● but none such were moderators save only lay Lords and unlearned heretics. ergo. 
The first motive is the 6. demand. In which he would prove the very name of Catholics, to whom 
Fulke.  soever it is given, to be a certain mark of right Catholics, to be known as readily, easily, and certainly by that name, as such a city is known by the name of London, and such a country by the name of England. If ever he learned any logic at Oxford, he left it behind him, or else lost it by the way when he ran over the sea. For if all things may be known by the name whereby they are commonly called, nothing beareth a false name, all Idols are true gods and saints, all dead carcales be living men. Yea all heretics which are commonly called Christians in respect of jews & Turks, be true Christians. But we must bring him a company of men, commonly known by the name of Catholics, which proved heretics. Forsooth the Arrians among themselves were commonly called bv the name of Catholics and so reputed and taken, when the true Catholics were called homousians and heretics, yea all heretics among the Pagans were commonly known by the name of Christians, which ● think is as glorious a name as the name of Catholics. Yet Augustine (saith ●ee) maketh much of the name of Catholics. Cont. ●●. Fund. c. 4. T●net me postremò, etc. Last of all the very name of the Catholic Church doth hold me, which not without cause, amongst so many heresies, this Church alone hath so obtained, that whereas all heretics would have themselves to be called Catholics, yet to a stranger which asketh where men meet at the Catholic Church, none of the heretics dare show either their minster or house. But let us see how Augustine and Bristol agree. Augustine maketh this name, the last motive, Bristol the first. Augustine joineth it with many things, Bristol maketh it alone to be a sufficient motive. Augustine in the next sentence after confesseth the plain demonstration of the truth, wheresoever it may be showed, to be preferred before all those motives of Universality, miracles, consent, succession and name of Catholics, by which he saith that he might be held in the Catholke Church, although he grounded no argument upon that wisdom, which the Manichees would not acknowledge to be in the catholic church, his words are these: Apud vos autem ubi nihil horum est quod me invitet ac teneat, sola personat veritatiae pollicitatio qu●e quidens sutam manifesta monstratur, ut in dubium venire non possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica ten●or. Among you Manichees (saith he) where there is none of these things which might allure and hold me, the only promisle of truth doth sound, which truth if it be showed so manifest that it cannot come in doubt, it is to be preferred before all those things, by which I am held in the Catholic Church. This is Augustine's judgement of such simple motives, which with the truth, may help to confirm it, but are not worth a straw when they are alleged against the truth. Wherefore seeing we make so plain demonstration of the truth out of God's word, that no man can doubt of it, but such as will follow the bare name of Catholic, contrary to the Catholic doctrine of the scriptures: against all such vain motives, we may be bold to oppose the truth itself. What a mockery is this that he saith? that an●eretike in Germany, being asked where the Catholic Church is, will point to ●●●● popish Church. Admit this to be so, doth this prove the Massing Church to be the Catholic Church? In France if you ask a Papist which is the reformed Church? he will point you to the place where the congregation of true Christians use to assemble. Doth the Papist therefore acknowledge, the Church of protestants to be in deed the reformed Church? I● he do not, the name of Catholics proveth no more on the one side, than the name of reformed Christians on the other side, that either is such in deed as of the vulgar and ignorant people they are called. But why are Protestants & all heretics desirous to be called Catholics? but that they which in deed have the name, are also in deed evermore true Catholics, and so the name alone sufficient to move any man. Who ever heard such an ass bray? as though there were no difference, whether they have the name rightfully or wrongfully, truly or falsely. In all the east Church, who are called Catholics, but the Grecians? Which for many hundredth years, have been separated from the Communion of the Latins, and of them are counted for heretics and Schimatikes. But Augustine de vera rel. Cap. 7. writeth more plainly for the name of Catholic. Tenenda est nobis Christiana etc. We must hold the Christian religion, and the company of that Church, which is Catholic and called Catholic, not only of her own but also of her enemies. For will they nill they, the heretics also and Schismatics themselves, when they talk not with their own, but with strangers, they call the Catholic Church nothing but the Catholic Church. For they can not else be understanded, except they discern her by that name, by which she is called of the whole world. This therefore (quoth Bristol) is proved, they to be Catholics that Catholics are called When as Augustine saith, we must hold that church which both is catholic, & is so called. Bristol the Papist, is called by the name of a City in England, therefore Bristol the Papist is in deed a city in England. This therefore is proved, that to be Bristol that Bristol is called. But how proveth he, that they be called Catholics? The world forsooth beareth them witness. For beside some ignorant fellow in Germany, that calleth them so, or rather not meaning to brabble in the street. yieldeth to that term, not because he thinketh them to be so, but because he knoweth the Papist which asketh for the Catholic Church, seeketh not the Catholic Church in deed, but the Popish Church falsely called Catholic: beside I say some tankard bearer boy or girl, that hath m●de such a unswere to Bristol as he traveled in Germany, he asketh when in printed books they be called Catholics, whether the reader knoweth not who is meaned? Yes verily, if the books be written by papists o● such as take neither part. But he would ●now further why we m●ke name than, & call them catholics or Cartholikes. I suppose whosoever mocketh them, it is because they falsely ●surpe that name, which they are not worthy to bear, and not because they be such, and the name evil: yet again he asketh why Luther i● Germany did cause the Creed to be turned. I believe the Christian Church, and not, I believe the Catholic Church. Mine answer is, I believe that Bristol belieth Luther, for any such change of the creed, although he might well expound the true Catholic Church by the name of the true Christian Church. But jewel confirmeth the name of Catholic to be theirs, or else what meaneth he to entitle his reply, Against the Roman religion which of late hath been accounted Catholic. Alas poor Bristol, hast thou no better reason to prove the Popish Church to be Catholic, but that jewel saith it hath been accounted Catholic, and proveth that it hath been falsely accounted so? Yes sir, not he only, but also Pope Humphrey in his Legend of sains jewel, confesseth us to be Catholics, where he saith that Pontacus erred, when he wrote that only lay men neither learned nor Catholics, were moderators in the disputation at Westminster. Why Bristol, are you not ashamed to take the name of the lord your god the Pope in vain? And because Pontacus complaineth that catholics were not moderators, doth Humphrey therefore acknowledge papists to be Catholics? yea forsooth, he doth so, and also confirmeth the story of Pontacus, when he saith, Catholics were present, but in the next word he expoundeth what catholics, namely papists. And some of them were also moderators, at the least wise one, namely D. Heath then occupying the place of the Bishop of York, therefore not only lay Lords, & unlearned heretics, as this lewd lozel and unlearned dogbolt & traitorous papist (I am bold with him, because he is so malapert with the learned & godly nobility of England) most slanderously and maliciously affirmeth were only moderators of that disputation, but some of the Popish faction were not only present but precedents of that action, beside all the rest of the popish prelate's, which then were of the Parliament, for information whereof that conference was appointed. But Humphrey saith moreover, that the chief cause of all evils, and as it were the Trojan horse within the walls of the Church, hath been hitherto a Catholic defection from the holy scripture, and especially your papistry. Therefore (saith Bristol) he acknowledgeth us to be Catholics. In deed you be catholic (that is to say universal revolters from the holy scriptures) if that title please you, rejoice of it & spare not. You be Catholic heretics, that is, heretics not in one or two articles of religion, but in all in as much as you deny the office of Christ upon which is grounded all Christianity. The name of Catholic of itself is indifferent to good and evil, even as the name of universal is: therefore in our Creed we say not simply, I believe the Catholic Church, but the holy Catholic Church. And therefore D Humphrey in calling you pseudocatholici, false Catholics, showeth what Catholics he meaneth you to be, not members of the holy Catholic Church of godly Christiss, but pillars of the false and counterfeit Church of malignant herenkes, And whereas you say, you have heard Humphrey in his fond and unlearned lectures at Oxford call them pseudocatholi●i, ●home Faustus the Maniche did entwite for honouring the memory of Martyrs, first you take upon you like the sow to entwite Minerva as it is in the latin proverb, which might better be borne withal, in a man of such learning and art as you show, if you did not also slander & bely him, as the devil doth all the saints of God. For although I never heard any of his lecturs: yet I dare affirm, he never accounted Augustine and ●●●● godly catholics of his time for false Catholics, although he could not allow of all that Augustine hath written and maintained. Wherefore it is clear he calleth not Augustine and the Catholics of his time, but you Papists of our time, false Catholics: and showed that to you did truly agree, that which Faustus did falsely charge the true Catholics with all, that is, the turning of Idols into Martyrs. For Faustus did slander, & not as you translateit, only entwite the true Catholics for worshipping the Martyrs, as ●●●● pagans worshipped their Idols. Calumniat●●nobis Faustus etc. Faustus doth slander us (saith Augustine) Again: Non tam me movetut hic Calumniae respondeam etc. He doth not so much move me that I should here answer his slander, as that I might show, that Faustus himself through desire of slandering, would serve even from the vanities of Maniche. The last authority for the name of Catholic in the 6. demand is the words of a serving man belike, that said to one M. Culpeper which died at Paris, lying on his death bed, In any case renounce the Catholic faith, which whether it were said so, or howsoever it were meant, I think the party that so spoke, had as much wisdom as Bristol showeth wit, in alleging his saying for proof of the name of Catholics, to be rightly given to them. The fantastical trance of that same gentleman which saw his good angel gloriously appearing to him, & assuring him that he was in the right way, which his ghostly father could not do, although it were not forged, yet can make no prejudice against the undoubted word of God, which condemneth that way of papistry, for the broad way that leadeth to destruction. You have heard what invincible reasons Bristol imagineth that he hath brought to prove the papists to be right Catholics. First because they call themselves so. Secondly because ignorant persons give them that name. And last of all because some learned men call them false Catholics, counterfeit Catholics, Catholic heretics. But as the judge of the conference that was between the true catholics & the Donatists said to the Donatists, when they challenged unto them the name of Catholics, so answer I to the papists, illos quan●o magis se esse Catholicos dicerent, tanto magis iam causam ipsam remotis nugarum interposuionibus agere debere, in qua probare possent se potius esse Catholicos, that the more they vaunt themselves to be catholics, that more they ought all delays being removed, now to go to the cause itself, in which they might prove that they are Catholics in deed, rather than we.   

The second motive is the seventh demand.  Name of Heretics, that very name a certain mark of very 
Bristol.  Heretics. Luther's consciens his side to be Heretics. 
If the very name of Heretics were a certain mark of Heretics, the Christians in the Apostles time 
Fulke.  should be very Heretics, for they were so called. yea (saith Bristol) of the blind and unbelieving jews, and so are we called by the blind and unbelieving Papists: so were all true Catholics always by all Heretics, which is so strange to Bristol, that he would have us bring an Example of any Christians that ever called any people Heretics, which proved not Heretics indeed. You may see his reading is very great, which thinketh no exception may be brought out of any History, or writings of the Fathers, for this matter. I will send him to that unperfect work upon S. Mathewes Gospel, written by an Arriane, yet among Papists commonly taken for Chrysostom, wherein the Author calleth and counteth the true Christians Heretics, which defendeth the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost to be equal, in Cap. 23. Hom. 45. Consequenter & ●aercticis dicitur hoc. consequently this is said to the Heretics. And lest you should doubt whom he calleth Heretics, it followeth immediately: Quando enim vides haereticos tres per omnia aequales dicentes eiusdem esse substantiae, eiusdem esse authoritatis, sine principio omnes hos aliqua part distantes a se, non mireris: implent enim mensuram patrum suorum Gentilium, quoniam & illi similiter multos deos colebant. For when thou seest the Heretics, saying, that there be three in all things equal of the same substance, and of the same authority, all these being without beginning, yet differing in some respect one from another, marvel not: for they fulfil the measure of their fathers the heathen men, for they did likewise worship many Gods. By this one example in stead of many, it is clear, that the Arrians did as commonly call the true Christians heretics, as the true Christians called them so. But if Bristol cavil, that the Arrians were not Christians. I answer, they were as good Christians as the Papists, who only almost call us heretics, even as we do likewise call them. And it were a shameless begging of the principle, to require that we should account Papists for true Christians, when the question is whether they be heretics or no. But it is a fine quarrel that he piketh against our translations of the Bible, where we call Hereticum a man that is author of Sects, as though we feared to call him an Heretic, least men should think the Apostle spoke against us. Nay Bristol, they that so translate, would have Englishmen to understand when S. Paul calleth an Heretic, that they might acknowledge the Pope to be an arch-heretic, because he is an author of so many Sects, contrary to the word of God. Neither did the Author of the apology mean, that men should less avoid Heresies, accounted by S. Paul among the works of the flesh. Gala. 5. where he alleged that S. Paul's doctrine was called Heresy of the jews, Act. 24. or that they should not think ill of them, which are adjudged Heretics by true Christians, but that they should no more regard that slanderous and malicious railing of the Papists, than the Apostles did of the jews, who were not much worse than the Papists, & in some things were more tolerable. Last of all, where Luther confesseth, that the members of the true Church were commonly called Heretics, his conscience did not accuse him, that his side were Heretics, for he was able to put a difference between him that by heretics is called an Heretic, and him that is so in deed, although Bristol, either for his blockish wit can not, or for his spiteful malice will not conceive it.   

The third motive is the eight Demand.  Name of Protestants, Nicolaites, Papists, a name of late put on us by Heretics. Rechabites, Christians, and Catholics are all 
Bristol.  one. S. hierom's motive name, as of Protestants, Homousians: Name of franciscans. etc. 
Whosoever in respect of the doctrine which they profess 
Fulk. e  (saith Bristol) have a new name made of some man's name, or otherwise taken up, whereby they term themselves, and are commonly termed and known thereby, undoubtedly are heretics. Therefore Lutherans, calvinists, Precisians, Puritans, unspotted brethren are heretics, even as the Nicolaitanes were. I deny the conclusion. For there are none of us that term ourselves Lutherans, calvinists, Precisianes, Puritans, unspotted brethren etc. The name of Protestants, if any do use, is not in respect of the doctrine we profess, but in respect of a protestation made against the decree of Spire in Germany. Neither is it otherwise acknowledged of us, than the name of Nazatites, was of the Apostles, the names of Homousians, Caesarians, & Caecilianists, was of the Christians in the time of the heresies of Arrius & Macedonius, Eunomius, Donatus etc. Paul was accused by Tertullus Act. 24. to be a chief captain of the heresy of the Nazarites, whereunto he answered: This ● confess, that according to that way which they call heresy, do I worship the God of my Fathers. That heretic which did write the unperfect work upon S. Matthewes Gospel, which goeth under the name of S. Chrysostom, in Cap. ●4. Hom. 48. thus writeth of ●●●● true Christians. Hęresis Homoousianorum, non solùm Christi eccl●siae adversatur, sed & omnibus haeresibus non similiter sapientibus. The heresy of the Homousians, is not only adversary to the Church of Christ, but also to all other heresies that be not of their mind. Here note, that the Arrians did give a new name to the true Christians, in respect of their doctrine whereof they were not ashamed. For Homousians signifieth them, that acknowledged the Father and the Son to be of the same substance. And over this note also: that the Arrian heretic did brag as much of the name of the Church then, as the Popish heretics do now. Basil in his Epist. 73. testifieth the same of the Arrians. Cęterum & Nicaenam fidem calumniantur, nósque Homousiastas probrosè vocant, propterea quod in ea fide fill 'em Dei unigenitum cum Deo ac patre Homousion confitemur. Moreover, they slander the faith of the Nicen Counsel, and call us reproachfully Homoousians, because that in that faith we confess the only begotten son of God to be of the same substance with the Father.  
But Bristol saith, it is a rule that the ancient Fathers always gave the people to know Heretics thereby if they had any such name. Hieronyme Adverse. Luciferiam. saith, Sicubi audieris, etc. If any where thou hear, then which are said to be of Christ, to be termed not of our Lord jesus Christ, but of some other, as Massionites, Valentinians, Montenses, Camputes, know thou, that they are not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. But he belieth Jerome, for he giveth not the name only as a sufficient note, but before the words by Bristol cited, he writeth, In illa esse ecclesia permanendum, quae ab apostolis fundata, usque ad diem hanc durat. We must tarry in that Church, which being founded by the Apostles, continueth unto this day. And immediately after Bristow'S pretended rule. Ex hoc enim ipso quod postea constituti sunt, eos se esse judicant, quos futuros apostolus praenunciavit. For even by this, that they are set afterward, they show themselves to be the same, whom the Apostle foreshowed to come. By these words it is evident, that Hieronymes rule runneth not only upon the name, howsoever it beginneth, but of the late spring of Heretics, whose doctrine being not founded by the Apostles hath a later beginning after them. The names of franciscans, Dominicanes, Benedictines etc. which certain sects of Papists give unto themselves, Bristol saith, they have not for any special doctrine brought in by their patrons, and therefore they be no names of Heretics. But I reply, that beside that divers of these sects distent in points of doctrine, as the Dominicanes and franciscans about Original si●ne. And to omit the guelphs and Gibellines, dissenting about the authority of the Pope and the Emperor, the greatest question in Popery, even those sects of Benedictines, Augustine's, Dominicanes etc. did all take their names, either of that man, or that order, which they held to be the perfection of Religion, consisting not in keeping the commandments of God, as Bristol like a wise man affirmeth, which all Christian men ought to endeavour, but in keeping the traditions and constitutions of men, standing in garments, in meats, in gesture, in ceremonies, & outward observations. wherefore they can not so lightly be acquitted of Heresy, even by Hieronymies own rule, and last of all by the example of the name of Rechabites, who had their name of their family, and not of any Sect in perfection. The name of Papists (saith Bristol) is lately put upon us by heretics, the like say we of the names of Lutherans, etc. put upon us by them. The saying of Augustine, De utilitate credendi, Cap. 7. toucheth us not, that Heretics dare not deny their names by which they are called, for we utterly deny all names by which we are called, in respect of our Religion, to be drawn from men, and answer only to the name of Christians. And as for the name of Catholics, which Bristol maketh all one with the name of Christians, being added to the name of Christians to distinguish true Christians from Heretics, which are counterfeit Christians, we do embrace it: but if from this right meaning of the name, it be drawn to signify a people, which by only glorying in that name, despise all true Christianity grounded upon the holy and divine Scriptures, as Bristol seemeth to make it, then is it no better than a name of Heretics, and so the name of Catholics, boasted of by them that refuse to be members of the holy Catholic Church, turneth to their own reproach, even as the name of the apostolics was to them, which bragged of the name of the Apostles, but were indeed no true followers of the Apostles, no more than the Papists be true Catholics.  
In the eight Demand, he would know why we call them not Gregorians, or Leonians, of some one Pope, but Papists of the general name of the Pope. I answer, because they maintain not one heresy only of one man, but a general heresy and Apostasy from Christ, whereof the Pope is the head, whom no more foolishly then falsely Bristol saith to have been always since the Apostles time. If he press us, that we make not dangerous, to acknowledge the name of Protestants, I confess, that when nothing is understood by that name, but men which profess that true doctrine which we do, we greatly strive not for the name. S. Paul himself openly acknowledged that he was a Phause, when nothing was understood by the name but one that believed the resurrection of the dead, although that term of Pharisee was otherwise the name of a sect of heretics, which maintained many damnable errors, from which the Apostle was most free. Last of all Augustine in Brevi. Coll. cum Donatist. Coll 3. dici counteth all these three motives of the name of Catholoques. Heretics, and Protestants, to be but dilatory shifts of the Heretics, not sound arguments of the Christian Catholics. Vbi cognitor cùm dixisset, hoc Catholi●i probare debebuat, ortus est iterù moratorius conflictus, de Catholico nomine & Donatistarum & Caecilianistaris. When the judge or Commissioner had said: This the Catholics ought to prove: there arose again a dilatory conflict about the name of Catholic, and of the Donatists, and of the Caecilianistes. The Donatists which were heretics, challenged to themselves the name of Catholics, as the Papists do against us, the true Christians they called Heretics and Caecilianistes, as the Papists call us. Heretics, Protestants. Lutherans, etc. but these were but dilatory devices of Heretics, to avoid the true trial, which as the Catholics in the forenamed conference confessed, was only by the Scriptures.   

The 4. motive is the 38. demand.  Old heresies. Arrians again alive in Protestants. Protistants be Pelagians, in denying Baptism to be necessary for the 
Bristol.  salvation of Infants. Her etiques are not Christians. 
Whatsoever was heresy in times past (saith Bristol) 
Fulke.  is heresy now also, some opinions holden by the Protestants, were heresy in times past, Ergo, they be heresies now also, so Protestants be Heretics, and no Christian, but almost Apostates. But I deny that any opinion holden by us, was ever Heresy. Yes saith Bristol, the denying of prayer and oblation for the dead was accounted heresy in A●rius, both by Epiphanius and Augustinus. True it is, they both following the error of their times, account it for an error in A●rius, but it doth not follow, that because they accounted it so, that it was so in deed, seeing neither of them both doth prove it to be an error by the authority of the holy Scriptures, but by the corrupt usage of their Churches, which had turned thanksgiving for the dead, into prayers and oblation for the dead And yet the same Epiphanius denieth fasting and alms to be profitable to the dead, wherefore the Papists do now hold the contrary. Contra Melchisedec sumus Haer. 53. He accounteth the having of the images of Christ and the Apostles, one of the heresies of the Gnostikes, Haer. 27. & many such like things which the Papists defend for Catholic. The like doth Augustine, wherefore let Bristol advise himself whether it be a good argument. Epiphanius and Augustine accounted prayer for the dead to be an error, Ergo, it was an heresy in deed. For an other example of old heresies by us recited he bringeth in, That cruel heresy of theirs, against the necessity of children's baptism, wherein they agree with the Pelagians, through which they suffer many thousand poor souls to perish, which can not help themselves, while they promise them both life everlasting, and the kingdom of heaven without baptism, whereas the Pelagians promised life everlasting only. Who would think, that this slanderous heretic had lived so long in England as he did before he became fugitive, which lieth so impudently without all colour or show of truth? Was there ever any of us heard to preach of baptism, as not necessary for infants, if they might obtain it according to the institution of Christ. But contrariwise, that it is a cruel error of the Papists, which condemneth infants, who being prevented by death, can not obtain the outward Sacrament: yet hath this error Augustine and Cyprian to uphold it. But if Augustine and Cyprian never erred, no not about the doctrine of the Sacraments, then let their authority defend the Papists. But when Cyprian denied the Baptism of Heretics to be any thing available, how many thousand souls both of young and old did he condemn? And when Augustine with Pope Innocent holdeth the communion to be as necessary for the salvation of Infants as Baptism: how many hundred thousand souls doth he condemn, or the Papists destroy, which deny the communion unto them? Cyprian lib. 1. Epi. 6. Magno. Augustin. Contra duas Epist. Pelagi. lib. 2. Cap. 4. where he accuseth the Pelagians, as well for affirming the Communion not to be necessary for Infants, as for holding, that Baptism was not needful for them.  
In the 38. Demand he chargeth us with denying prescript fasting days, which is fall, when they be prescribed by the Church of God, and not usurped of superstition and opinion of merit.  
He chargeth us further with denying of Free Will, and quoteth in the margin August Tom. 6. De fide contra Manichaeus, Cap. 9 & 10. where in deed Augustine against the Manichees affirmeth the Free Will of man, but in his retractations he showeth, that even then he understood it of the state of Man before his fall, and therefore the Pelagians, which were maintainers of Free Will to remain in man since the fall of Adam, did slaunderouslie usurp those his sayings against him and the truth, even as the Papists do now. Cùm autem de libera voluntate rectè faciendi loquimur, de illa scilicet in quae homo factus est loquimur. Ecce tam longè antequam Pelagiana haeresis extitisse●●sic disputanimus: velut iam contra illos disputaremus. Whensoever we speak of the Free Will of man to do well, we speak of that Will, in which man was made. Behold so long before the Pelagian heresy arose, we have disputed even so, as though we had disputed against them. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 9 Now judge whether if Papists or we, be more like to the Pelagians. He chargeth us moreover, to hold against the merit of single life, quoting Aug. haer. 82. with joviaian, which is false, for as Augustine understandeth by merit worthiness or excellency, we acknowledge that the state of virginity is more excellent then of matrimony, in such respects as the Apostle preferreth it. 1. Cor. 7.  
Last of all he chargeth us, with holding against the vow of single life, quoting Aug. Retract lib. 2. c. 22. where there is no word of any vow, and much less of vowing a single life, in them that can not live an honest & chaste life without marriage. There is mention of certain sanctimoniales holy and devout women, of whose chastity was no suspicion, which leaving their purpose of virginity, were persuaded by jovinian to marry. Not we therefore, have revived any old heresy, but the Papists have continued many old errors, revived many old heresies, of the Pharisees, Phrygians, Anthropomorphites, & added many new of their own, such as were never he●●d of in the primitive Church, for six hundred years after Christ, as hath often been showed at large.   

The 4. and 5. motives are included in the 10. demand.  Miracles dogmatic, a mark of true doctrine for the sacrifice 
Bristol.  of the Mass, for purgatory. Devils expelled with a Mass by a Priest of S. Augustine's, who was of our religion. S. Bede of our religion. Mass said for the dead oftentimes to redemption both of body and soul. The saerament of the altar sticked by the jews bleedeth. Marks and monasteries. Visions for our religion. An English woman miraculously cured of late by the blessed sacrament. Holy water. Mass confirmed by miracles in Africa, England and Brabant. 
Bristol divideth miracles into dogmatical and personal. 
Fulke.  Of the first sort he setteth this conclusion. Whosoever have at any time set themselves against, any doctrine confirmed by miracle, they have been against the truth. There can to this no instans be given: our doctrine which they resist hath been confirmed by miracles, therefore plain it is that they are enemies of the truth.  
Do you hear this shameless beast, say, there can be no instans given against his proposition? When the Lord himself giveth an express law, against a false prophet, which showeth signs or miracles. Deut. 13. Did not jannes' and Jambres wh●ch resisted moses, work miracles: doth not our Saviour Christ prophecy that many false Christ's and false prophets should arise and work such great signs and miracles, as (if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Matth. 24. Doth not S. Paul prophecy, that the coming of Antichrist shallbe according to the working of Satan, in all power and lying signs and miracles, and therefore no marvel if Bristol brag, that he can fill whole volumes with them? But miracles are not the trial, but the confirmation of doctrine, which must be tried only by the Scriptures of God: without the authority whereof, no miracles ought to move us to give credit, and much less any miracles may move us to believe any doctrine which is against it. But yet let us consider of such miracles as Bristol rehearseth.  
First for the sacrifice of the Mass, and for purgatory. August. de civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. writeth, that in a Farm house of one Hesperius, was great hurt and trouble by evil spirits, which at the prayers of a certain Priest or elder of Augustine's Chutch, was stayed & ceased. There is no word of devils expelled with a Mass, or with the sacrifice of the Mass. That which in Bristow'S ear soundeth that way, is Perre ●it unus, etc. One went thither, he offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying with all his power, that the same vexation might cease: But Augustine by offering the sacrifice of Christ's body, meaneth nothing, but ministering of the communion, as that holy action was then figuratively called, but yet nether the Mass, nor the sacrifice thereof, was at that time invented, as I have often & plentifully showed else where, and namely against Heskins lib. ●. cap. 22. That he nameth the sacrifice of the body of Christ, it is not sufficient to prove him of Bristow'S religion, greater cause have we to challenge him to be of our religion, when he calleth the sacrament the sign of the body of Christ, and saith, that Christ will not give us that body which was borne of the virgin, and crucified etc. contra Adimant. In joann tract. ●0. cap. 12.  
From Augustine he passeth to a tale reported in Bedes history of a captive, whose chains were loosed at such time, as his brother which was a Monk and Priest said mass for him, by which report, Bede saith, many were moved to pray, give alms or offer the sacrifice of the holy oblation for the delivery of their friends which were departed out of this world a sorry motive without the authority of God's word, which albeit it was credited of Bede, as diverse other fables were, yet may we doubt of the truth of it, and although it were true that such a feat was wrought, yet it can not establish a doctrine contrary to the holy Scriptures. And notwithstanding that Bede living in a corrupttime, holdeth many errors of Papistry, yet I have showed against Stapletons' sortresse, that he holdeth not all, not many of the chiefest.  
After this miracle of Bede, he beginneth the story of our country woman, which having played the harlot in London, and running over into Flanders to seek the knave that got her with child, was made lame with childbearing, so that one leg was shorter than an other by more than half a foot, saith Bristol. But after often shrift, and other holy exercises of Popery, in time of a mass, she was restored to health by the sacrament of miracle. I doubt not but the masters of Bridewell (near which place she dwelled sometime) which have done as great cures as that, could have healed her of her lameness, without the sacrament of miracle. In rehearsal of this doggetricke miracle, he interlaceth an other as monstrous a lie as this. That the pyx being stolen by a jew, & the cakes sticked in despite among the jews, did bleed abundantly, that a drunken woman a jew borne, and christened, being admonished by an Angel in a vision, restored that pyx with three hosts in it to her ghostly father, from whom they were translated to S. Gudulaes' church in Brussels, where they are kept until this day, from the year of our Lord 1369. which is more than 200. years ago. The like fable they have at the Monastery of Billets in Paris, where they have a cruse full of the miraculous blood, which issued out of the mass cake so sticked by the jews: which are even as great miracles, as the blood of Ha●les was in England. For if the Papists durst for their credit, commit those miraculous hosts and blood unto indifferent view and custody, where no fraud might be used, I durst adventure my life, (which is almost all that I have to lose) that within less than two years, they shall either be found to consist of a counterfeit matter that is perdurable, or else they shall putrefy and rotte● which they would bear us in hand, have continued more than two hundredth years: In the demand and in the next motive m●ntion is made of miracles wrought in Ind●a and by Pius quintus the Pope at Rome which either are lies, or juggling casts of counterfeiting cozeners. But if they or their Pope have any such power, as they brag of, why come they not in the face of their adversaries, & challenge them, as Helias did the Priests of Baal, and in open sight of their enemies show their mighty miracles: and not prate of wonders done in the Indes, of which they may lie, where there is none to control them, or wrought, among themselves, where we can ●udge nothing of them, but counterfeiting and cozening, with which practices they have been taken & tried too often, to gain any credit with any that have any wisdom in them.   

The 6. motive.  Miracles personal, a mark of true Doctors. S. barnard 
Bristol.  of our religion with what miracles he confirmed images, churches, the real presence, transubste ●ati●n, sacrifice of the mass, praying for the dead, praying to Saints, and man● other articles. Miracles for & by holy bread & for the sign of the cross. The sign of the cross worketh miracles. Excommunication of Pius v to be feared, who by his prayers & signing of the cross, did cast devils out of five women. 
Bristow'S principle against which there can be no 
●ulke.  instance, is this. Whatsoever persons at any time since Christ's ascension have had the grace of miracles, they were the ministers of Christ, I say not always just and holy: but always preachers of his truth: and consequently, whosoever set themselves against such persons they were against Christ & against the truth. In the last chapter before, I have brought instance, both out of the Law and the Gospel, of false Prophets and false Christ's, which should work great miracles, and yet preach against God & Christ. Wherefore this conclusion is utterly false.  
Bristol replieth, they are lying signs, such as were wrought by jannes' and Jambres, and shallbe wrought by Antichrist, not able to abide the trial, so say I of all Popish miracles, either they are feigned, or ●ls they are counterfeited, or if any wondrous thing be done, it is according to the working of Satan as the Apostle teacheth us. 2. Thess. 2. So did Marcus the heretic make strange appearances in the sacrament of Christ's blood, as witnesseth Iren. cus lib. 1. cap. 9 Tertullian affirmeth, the holy Ghost the comforter to be in the M●̄tanistes, by acknowledging of the promised graces lib de amma cap. de inferis. Where also he maketh mention of prayer for the dead confirmed by a miracle among the Montanists. Augustine speaketh of Paulus & Donatus, that wrought miracles to confirm the heresy of the Donatists. de unitat. eccles. Soz●menus lib. 1. cap. 14 reporteth that Eutychianus a Novatian heretic, was notable in working of miracles. Wherefore if the fables written of Francis, Dominike, Becket, etc. were true, yet are not they by such miracles proved true preachers.  
But S. Bernard was of our religion saith Bristol. In deed he maintained many of your opinions, yet not all nor the chiefest, for he believed that a man might be saved s●la fide by faith only Ep. 77. But he was an enemy to the Henricians which burned images, destroyed Churches and were against all such points of Popery, as the title mentioneth: and these heretics he overcame, not only by preaching, but by miracles (saith Bristol) as he testifieth himself Ep. 241. The truth (saith he) was made manifest non s●lum in sermone sed etiam in virtute: not only by preaching but also by working as doth Bristol translate, whereas he should say, not only by speech but also by power, so that of miracle there is no mention. Yet Godfrey the Monk, that was his discisciple, writeth of miracles wrought by bread, sanctified with the sign of the cross. etc.: But Godfries writing we hold for no Gospel. Neither know we the contrary, but some Godf●ie God's foe, which hued long after bernard, might fayne those books in the name of one of his disciples that lived in his time, for the number of miracles rehearsed in them, fine pass the number of the miracles recorded by the Evangelists of our Saviour Christ. And that you may know from what spirit those books proceeded, you shall understand, that the same Godfrey lib. 1. cap. 3. extolleth the wisdom of Barnard above all the Scriptures. Vicbatur sanè Scripturis tam liber●è commodeque, v● non tam sequi illas quam praecedere crederetur, & ducere ipse quô vellet, auctorem earum ducem spiritum sequens. He used in deed the Scriptures so freely and fitly that he might be thought not so much to follow them, as to go before them, & to lead them whither he would, following the spirit, the author of them as a guide. Again he saith of him. Name & confessus est aliquando sibi meditanti veloranti, sacram omnem velut subse positam & expositan● apparuisse Scripturam. For he confessed sometimes while he studied or prayed, that all the holy Scripture appeared to him, as placed under him and expounded. But Bernard himself as appeareth by his writings, abhorred from that blasphemous confession: Again those epitaphs, which were written at his burial, commend Bernard highly for his learning and virtue, but of miracles they speak not, which they would not have omitted, if they had been so many as this Godfrey writeth.  
The excommunication of Pius quintus, we fear no more than we believe his miracle, how soever that pageant was devised, which cometh too late to persuade us, that the Pope can work miracles. For it had been more in season for Leo the 10, or Clemens the seventh, if they or any of these had received such power, to have showed it in general council, or assembly of the states against Luther and his followers, than now that Antichrist is in so great part consumed by the spirit of the Lords mouth, to think to establish his throne by lying signs and wonders which few of the Papists do in their consciences think to be other then counterfeited and forged.   

The 8. motive is the 12. demand.  Visions a mark of true doctrine and Doctors. Christ to be believed for visions. S. Augustine was of our religion and 
Bristol.  brought thereto by God. believing the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar which is to be worshipped with religion, saying mass for the dead. Prayer for the dead used always. S. Gregory was of our religion. Mass said every day. Prayer for the dead confirmed by a vision serving for our religion, prophecies for our religion. Why Protestants deny not all the Scriptures. Visions for our religion. The communion book burned in a vision. The communion in a vision received by a black dog. The service of Protestants to be refrained. S. Cyprian of our religion. 
Of visions we have the same rule, that of miracles such as are of God s●rue to confirm that doctrine which 
Fulke.  is delivered in the holy Scriptures. such were the visions showed unto the Apostles and holy men. But if any vision seemed to bring in any doctrine that was not contained in the Scriptures, both the vision was to be known for a deuil●h illusion, and the dreamer of that vision commanded to be slain. But how will Brist●w prove, that S. Augustine was of his religion? even by that wise argument, that he ●seth so often, because he held some one error common with them, although he were contrary to them in the whole substance of religion. For thus he reasoneth. S. Augustine was of the same religion that his mother Monica was, who saw in a vision that he should be converted to the Catholic faith when he was a Manichee: But Monica was of our religion, because ●he believed the real presence, and worshipped so that blessed sacrament with religion, and making of it God himself.  
But how proveth he that she so believed and worshipped? She knew saith he that from the al●ar was ministered & dispensed victima sancta etc. that holy sacrifice where by was stricken out that hand writing that was against us. Au. lib. cont. 9 ●ap. 13. A strange conclusion. She acknowledged the ministration of the sacrament to be a dispensation or communication of the sacrifice of Christ's death, which every Protestant doth, therefore she believed the real presence. But how did she worship the sacrament, and make God himself of it? Marry (S. Augustine saith) Ad vn●m etc. To the sacramens of whi●h our price, thy handmaid pved her soul with the bond of faith. What word is here of worshipping, or making the sacrament God himself? Yes saith Bristol: for Augustine saith in other places, we must tie our souls to God alone, whereof religion is so named, wherefore she tying her soul to the sacrament, maketh the sacrament God himself. A substantial reason I promise you, by which you may as well prou● that she worshipped baptism and made God himself ofit, for there is no doubt, but unto baptism (which is also the sacrament of our price) she tied her soul with the band of faith, and so hath every faithful Protestant. For the sacraments by faith, are certain pledges of our conjunction with God through Christ. Into whose death we are engraffed by baptism, as we are fed with his body and blood in the supper.  
The place of Augustine is corruptly cited by Bristol, who hath cut of both the head and the foot of it, which is this. Ad unum Deumtendentes, & ei uni religantes an●mas nostras, unde religio dicta creditor, omni superstitione careamus. Having respect to one God and tying our souls to him only, whereof religion is thought to be called, let us be void of all superstition. For Monica had respect only to God, when she tied her soul by faith unto the seal of God's promises. And she was void of superstition, when she cleaved to none other ceremony of conjunction with God, but only to that, which was ordained of God himself for that purpose. But how proveth Bristol, that prayer for the dead was used always, or that Mass was said for the dead. Because that in the corrupt time of Augustine, prayer was used for the dead, and in the prayers used at the celebration of the communion, remembrance was made of the dead. This is a strange kind of reasoning: that was used sometime, therefore it was used always. But how long it was used, and how it was taken up, I have showed in mine answer to Allins book of Purgatory.  
Now cometh S. Gregory to be of Bristow'S religion. I will not deny but in many errors and superstitions Gregory agreeth with the Papists, but yet not in all, nor in some of the chiefest. The visions he rehearseth for prayer for the dead, if they were not feigned dreams, they were illusions of the devil, because they serve to maintain that doctrine, which is contrary to the Scriptures, which teach that after death followeth judgement immediately, so that no prayers can prevail. Heb. 9 26. But prophecies are for Bristow'S religion. How so I pray you? The conversion of Augustine and the death of Cassius were foretold in vision. If both those were granted to be true visions, your religion were never the better, except the conversion of the one, and the death of the other be your religion. But admitting the dream of Monica to be a true vision, how prove you that the Chapeline of Cassius did not fayne his vision after his master was dead?  
But the dream of judas Machabaeus who saw the Prophet jeremy pray for the people, is recorded in the Canonical Scripture itself (saith Bristol) 2. Mach. 15. chap. which Scripture the Protestants reject, because it maketh against them, as they would do all the rest, but that they think they have invented shifts good enough to blind the world. What reverence we bear to the holy Scriptures of God, he himself, our own conscience, and the whole world can testify. And the rejection of such books as were not written by the spirit of God, doth approve the same. Beside the authority of the ancient Church, both of the jews and Gentills which never received the same books into the canon, we have often made manifest demonstration, that they proceeded not from the spirit of God. Wherefore the Papists making them of equal credit with the word of God, incur the curse of God, which is unto all them that either add or take away any thing from his holy word.  
But the Papists are not destitute of visions in these days, for Bristol knoweth a Protestant who hath confessed that he saw in a dream, the communion book out of many hands cast into a fire, and yet the man continueth a Protestant. Verily he doth as a good Christian should do, that not only with no vain dreams, but nether with visions of Angels from heaven he will be moved to condemn that doctrine which he knoweth assuredly to be agreeable to the holy Scriptures. But there was a Papist in London, which came to the Church against his conscience, and saw a fowl black dog take the communion ever more, at the naughty ministers hands, as he offered it to the communicants, which struck the Papist so at the heart, that he went home and died upon it. This devilish illusion, or melancholic persuasion of a devilish dogged Papist, thinketh Bristol able to condemn the holy ministration of the lords supper, warranted by ●●●● Scriptures according to Christ's institution? As for the extaticall & fantastical dream of master Allington, tending (as I remember) to maintain Idolatry, wise men regard as much as such fantasies deserve, after which, if we should shape our religion, we should alter as often as any man's fond humour or foolish conceit ministereth new visions and strange apparitions. But I manuel among so many visions, that Bristol omitteth, the famous vision of Elizeus Hall that came from Manchester to London, with a book of his cold prophecies, to convert the Queen & the Realm to Papistry. Well (saith Bristol) you scorn at our visions and dreams, yet was S. Cyprian of our religion: Because he defendeth some visions and dreams which were seen in his time, which were not to maintain any thing contrary to the Scripture, but that which was agreeable to the same. A poor reason, why he should be of your religion. And yet it is all the reason that you bring. But for our judgement of miracles, of visions & dreams to be motives in controversies of the Church, you shall hear Augustine's sentence, De 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae cap. 16. against the Donatists. Remo●is ergo omnibus talib●s, Eccl●siam suam demonstrent, sipossunt, non in sermonibus & rumoribus Asrorum, non in concilies Episcoporum suorum, non in literis quorumlibet d. sp●tatorum, non in signis & prodigijs falla●ibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati & cauti redd●●i sumus, sed in praes●ripio legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius pastoris vocibus, in Euangelistaru'● pr●edicationibus & laboribus, hoc est in omnibus canonic●s sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Wherefore setting aside all such matters, let them show forth the Church to be theirs, if they can, not in the speeches and rumours of Africanes, not in the councils of their Bishops, not in the writings of all manner of discoursers, not in deceivable signs & wonders, because that even against those things, we are prepared and made wary by the word of our Lord: but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the voices of the shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is to say in all the canonical authorities of the holy books 3. And again in the same chapter, & sic ●stendat & non dicat, verum est quia ego hoc dico, aut quia hoc dixit ille collegameus, aut illi collegaemeis, aut illi Episcopi vel Clerici, vel Laici nostri, aut ide● verum est quia illa & illa mirabilia fecit Donatus, vel Pontius, aut quilibet alius, aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant & exaudiuntur, aut quia illa & illa ibi contingunt, aut quia ille frater nofler, aut illa soror nostra, tale visum vigilan● vidit, veltale visum dormiens somniavit. Removeantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum, velportenta fallacium spirituum, aut enim non sunt vera, quae di●un●tr, aut sihaereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt, magis cavere debemus. And let him so show it, that he say not, it is true because I say this, or because this said that companion of mine, or those companions of mine, or those our Bishops or Clerks or lay-men: or therefore it is true, because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done these or those miracles, or because men pray at the memories of our martyrs & are heard, or because these are those things do happen there, or because that our brother or that ou rsister saw such a vision waking, or dreamt such a vision sleeping. Let these things be removed which either are the feignings of lying men, or else the wonders of deceiving spirits, for either they are not true that are said to be, or if any miracles are done by heretics, we ought the more to take heed of them. And yet again he writeth in the same book and chapter. Sed utrumipsecclesiam teneant, non nisi diumarum s●ripturarum Canontcis libris ostcudant, quia nee nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere, quod in ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus co●●niendauit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrose, vel alij innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi, aut quia nostrorum collegarum concilijs ipsa predicata est, aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia, vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt, ita ut latentia per tot annos corpora martyrum (quod possunt à multis interrogantes audire) Ambrosio fuerint revelata, & ad ipsa corpora Caecus mult●rum annorum, civitati Mediolanensi notissi●nus oculos lumenque receperit, aut quia ille Somnium vidit, & ille spiritu assumptus audivit, sive ne iniret in partem Donati, s●ue ut recederet à part Donati. Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt: non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia hae: in eafiunt. Ipse Dominus jesus cum resurrexisset à mortuis, & discipulorum oculis videndum manibusque tangendum corpus suum offerret: nequid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur, magis eos testimonijs Legis & Prophetarum & Psalmorum confirmandos esse i●dicauit ostendens, ca de se impleta, quae fuerant tanto ante praedicta. Sic & ecclesiam suam commendavit dicens praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam & remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, inciptentibus ab Jerusalem. Hoc in Lege & Prophetis & Psalmis esse s●riptum ipse testatus est, hoc eius ore commendatum tenemus. Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. But whether they hold the church or no, let them show none otherwise, but by the Canonical books of the holy Scriptures: Because that neither we do say, that therefore men must believe us, that we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevitum or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other Bishops of our communion, have commended this Church which we hold, or because it is commanded in the counsels of our fellow Bishops, or because that in the holy places which our communion doth frequent throughout the world, so gteat miracles are done either of hearing men's prayers or of healings, so that the bodies of martyrs which have been hidden for so many years, (which which thing if they will ask they may hear of many) were revealed unto Ambrose, and that at the same bodies a man which had been blind many years, very well known to the city of Milan, received his eyes & sight: or because this man saw a dream, or that man being taken up in spirit did hear, either that he should not enter into the faction of Donatus, or that he should departed from Donatus side. Whatsoever of such things are done in the Catholic church, they are therefore to be approved because they are done in the Catholic church, but the church is not thereby proved Catholic, because such things are done in it. Our lord jesus himself, when he had risen from the dead, & offered his body to be seen with the eyes, & touched with the hands of his disciples, yet lest they should think they suffered any illusion, he judged that they were rather to be confirmed with the testimonies of the law & the prophets, & the Psalms, showing that those things were fulfilled of him, which were so long before prophesied. So also he commended his church, saying, that repentance & forgenenes of sins must be preached in his name through out all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This he himself testifieth to be written in the law & the prophets, & the psalms, this we hold being comm●nded to it by his own mouth. These be profess of our cause, these be our foundations, & these be our strong arguments.  
These things I have set down more at large, out of Augustine, because they are not only a stop unto these motives of miracles, & visions, but in a manner to all the rest that follow.   

The 8. motive is the 4. demand.  
Scriptures denied by the Protestants, what scriptures they deny, praying for the dead confirmed by scripture, & pray or of 
Bristol.  saints for us, faith only against the scripture. Real presence of Christ in the sacrament confirmed by scripture. No scripture, is against the Catholics but all is for them.  
Whosoever have taught doctrine (saith Bristol) so plainly repugnant to the holy Scriptures, that for maintenance 
Fulke.  thereof they were feign to deny books of the holy Scriptures, or to say the Scriptures to have been falsified and corrupted, they were heretics: and such are the Protestants, therefore they are heretics: How prove you the Protestants to be such? Marie saith Bristol first they deny the Canonical most certain Scripture of the Maccabees, for none other cause, but that it is plain against their heresies, maintaining prayer for the dead and prayer of Saints for us. This is a loud lie, for we show many causes, why we reject that profane writing of jasons abridger, beside the authority of the jewish church before Christ, and the primitive church after Christ as I have declared against the second book of Allens defence cap. 3. But in defence of the book of Maccabees to be Canonical, Bristol wilsay as S. Augustine said to certain that denied a testimony of the book of wisdom de praedest. Non debuit. They should not reject the saying of the book of wisdom which in the church of Christ hath deserved so long a rew of years to be recited in the step of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of divine authority to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sort of lay men etc. And again. Et Etiam temporibus etc. Even the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times, when they brought forth that book for witness, believed that they brought nothing but a divine testimony.  
Touching this defence, first I ask of Bristol, how he can prove that the book of Maccabees, hath had such continuance of credit? Secondly how this saying of Augustine concerning the book of wisdom, can be true when Jerome plainly rejecteth it, as not Canonical praefat. in Proverb. Thirdly I demand how Bristol can defend his mayor, if we admit this saying of Augustine to be true, for not Pelagius as Allen saith expressly, nor any Pelagians as Bristol seemeth to mean, but such as defended the Catholic faith against Pelagius, rejected this saying of the book of Wisdom, which book also we refuse, although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that book impugn? nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest against Images, against Purgatory and merits, yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Ph●lo a ●ew since Christ's time, for the canonical Scripture of Solomon, whose title it saltly beareth.  
But to proceed, Luther denieth the Epistic of S. james, because it is against his heresy of instfication by faith only. We allow not Luther, neither did he allow himself therein, for he retracteth it afterward. Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretic which utterly rejecteth that Epistle. Lib. 2. cap. 23.  
But to go on, Beza doth say, that S. Luke's Gospel is falsified, because it maintaineth the real presence of Christ in the sacramet, where he saith, Hic est calix this is the chalice, which is shed for you. This is an impudent slander, which I have answered against Saunders rock of the church, in his ninth mark of an Antichristian, where it is handled at large, and thither I refer the Reader. To conclude, Bristol saith, no Scriptures is against the Catholics but all for them, because they must obediently receive and believe all Scriptures canonical. But what obedience and belief they attribute to the canonical Scriptures, it is plain by this, that they dare not abide the trial by them, but fly from them to traditions as Bristol doth even in the next motive, as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teach all truth, and to confute all errors.  
In the demand this moti●e is handled somewhat otherwise, for there we are examined, whether in the conference of Carthage Augustine and his fellows did not prove by Scripture, that a visible Church should begin at Jerusalem which should continue visibly to the end of the world. I answer, they proved sufficiently, that the preaching of the gospel beginning at Jerusalem, should gather the Church out of all parts of the world, and therefore the faction of Donatus, which begun in Africa & was not to be found but in a corner of Africa, could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristol demandeth, there was no controversy in that conference, and therefore no proof thereof brought out of the Scriptures.   

The 9 motive is the 29 demand.  Traditions most certain. The Apostles were of our religion. 
Bristol.  S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, S. Cyprian. fasting days, lent, mass for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions, water mingling mith the wine in the chalice. The Mass made by S. Paul. S. Paul of our religion. 
The true Church (saith Bristol) hath always had traditions 
Fulke.  beside the Scripture, and what company soever was feign to cry for only Scriptures, & to deny most certain traditions of the Apostles, their doctrine was heresy and they heretics. To prove that the church had always traditions beside Scripture, he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written, when it was necessary for the Church to have much of the doctrine delivered only by preaching, yet had they no doctrine of faith, but such as was confirmed by scriptures of the old testament, as is manifest 2. Pet. ●, But for the certainty of popish traditions, what proof hath he? First Basil de sp. sancto cap. 27. saith Dogmata etc. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church, we have partly by doctrine committed to writing, partly by tradition of the Apostles, which are of like force unto godliness etc. But the same Basil writeth contrary to himself and agreeable to the truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whatsoever is beside the holy Scripture, in that it is not of faith, is sin. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he requireth even new planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures, both for their full persuasion in godliness, & also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that they be not acquainted with men's traditions. Furthermore (saith Bristol) Augustine, Epiphanius & the Protestants themselves, condemn helvidius for an heretic, for denying the perpetual virginity of mary the mother of Christ, contrary to the Church's tradition. Nay rather for troubling the church with contention about that, in which he hath no ground out of the Scriptures. Now let us see how they are proved to be heretics, that refuse traditions of the Apostles, & are fain to cry for only Scriptures. First that Maximinus the Arrian did so, ergo whosoever doth so is an heretic, according to Bristow'S logic. And yet he belieth Maximinus, for he refused not traditions of the Apostles, but such words as were beside the Scripture, meaning Homoousion & such like terms, which were then newly used, but yet contained no new doctrine, but even that which always was approved according to the Scriptures. The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperor Constantius forbidden, & not traditions of the Apostles, of which was no controversy, between the true Christians & the Arrians. But that the Scriptures only are of sufficient authority to confute heresies, Augustine declareth even against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nun● nec ego Niccnum etc. But now must not I bring forth the council of Nice, nor thou the council of Ariminum, to make any prejudice, but by the authority of Scriptures not being proper to either, but common witnesses to us both, let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. Likewise he and his fellow Bishops said unto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage. Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur qu● vel rbi esset Ecclesia, nihil se acturos publicis gestis, sed scripturarum divinarum tantummodo testimonijs. If this only were the question, which or where the Church were, that they would plead nothing at all by public acts of men, but only by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures. Yet saith Bristol, the Apostles were of our religion, because Chrysostom saith Ad pop. Antioch. that it was decreed by the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries a remembrance should be made of the dead. This saith Bristol, was mass for the dead. How prayers for the dead came in & how at length sacrifice of the mass was applied unto the dead, I have showed sufficiently against Allen lib. 2. ca 5. If we should admit all things to be ordained of the Apostles, which some of the old writers do ascribe to their traditions, we should receive many things that even the Papists themselves do not observe. As that it is a wicked thing to fast on Sunday, or to pray kneeling, that oblations are to be made for men's birth days, etc. which with diverse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth upon the tradition of the Apostles, as well as oblation for the dead. De coron. nul. hearing therefore such manifest untruths are fathered upon the Apostles tradition by most ancient writers, what certainty can we have of their tradition, without their own writing. Again S. Hierom saith it was a tradition of the Apostles, to fast 40 days in the year. If this be true, then is the popish story false, that maketh Telesphorus Bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast. Eusebius showeth the great diversity of fasting before Easter li. 5, cap. 26. saying that some fasted but 1 day, some 2 days, some more, some 40 hours of day & night, this diversity proveth ●●●● Hierom untruly ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles, which should have been kept uniformly, if it had any institution of the Apostles. Cyprian saith it was our lords tradition, that the wine in the communion should be mingled with water. But the Scripture saith not so, S. Paul which delivered that which he received of Christ, saith not so. And yet Cyprian contendeth principally for the use of wine in the cup against the watery heretics that used only water. It is a common thing with the ancient writers, to defend every ceremony mhich was used in their time, by tradition of the Apostles. But the chief matter is the mass, which saith Bristol S. Paul one of our religion made. I marvel whether Bristol writeth this for fools to believe, or for wise men to laugh at. When they themselves make Gregory or Scholasticus, or I can not tell whom, auctor of the canon, and when they writ how every piece was added by what Pope, what impudence is it to say, that S. Paul made the Mass, and to call Augustine to witness that which he good man, did never think of, and much less write. Whose words Bristol hath mangled and falsified. for thus he citeth them Ep. 118. cap 6. Totum illum agendi ordinem, quem universum per orbem servat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse. That by him was ordained this order of doing, which through the whole world the Church doth keep in doing of Mass. The words of Augustine speaking of receiving the communion, fasting, or before all other meats, are these, upon the words of S. Paul. Caetera cum venero ordinabo. unde intelligi datur, quia multum erat ut in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem universa per orbem servat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse, quod nulla morum diversitate variatur. Other things will I set in order when I come. Whereby it is given us to be understood because it was much, that in an epistle he should set forth that whole order of doing, which the whole Church throughout the world doth observe, that this thing was ordained by him, which is varied by no diversity of manners, understanding the custom of receiving the communion fasting, which he said before was generally observed in all places. But of ordaining the mass there is no title You see now how ●●●● Apostles & especially S. Paul is of Bristow'S religion, beside Chrysostom, Hierom & Cyp●ian.   

The 10 and 11 motives are confusely contemned in the 34 demand.  The Courches' judgement is always infallible. When by 
Bristol.  jewel the Church of God died. Donatists and Luciferians alive again in Protestants. S. Augustine and S. Jerome were of our religion. Protestants in their own conscience be against the Church which is everlasting and visible. No scripture against the catholics but all for them. Christ to be loved for the authority of his Church, for which there be plainer prophecies then for Christ himself. 
Although we should grant the Church's judgement 
Fulke.  to be always infallible, yet would we never grant the popish church's authority which falleth so manifestly from the word of God, & thereby showeth herself to be the malignant Church, & Synagogue of Satan. That the Church of Christ hath always been from the beginning, & shall continue unto the end of the world, we all confess and defend. Wherefore it is an impudent slander of Bristol, to say that by jewel the Church died within six hundredth years after Christ. And that the Donatists and Luciferians are revived in Protestants. For we nether say, that the Church is perished out of all places, except Africa, as the Donatists, nor that it is become a stews with the Luciferians. But the Papists are more like to the Donatists, which say the Church is perished out of all parts of the world except Europe, and in steed of the Church they defend a stews and sink of all idolatry, superstition & ungodliness. Therefore Augustine and Hierom be not of Bristow'S religion, for condemning those heretics to whom Bristol and his Papists are more like than the Protestants.  
Nether do Protestant's in their conscience think the Church of Christ to be against them, because Castalio an Anabaptist translateth Ecclesiae the Church into reipublicae the common wealth, or because many use the name of congregation, which is the true signification of this word Ecclesia, as no man will deny that is not past all shame. That the Church is everlasting and visible to them that have such eyes as the Church is, that is spiritual, we never deny. But that it is visible to the world always, that shall never be proved. That no Scripture is against the Catholics we grant, but that many Scriptures are against the Papists, it hath been more than a thousand times proved. That the church giveth testimony to Christ & that the prophecies of the churches everlasting continuance are plain & evident, It is no question between us. But that the synagogue of Romish Papists is the church of Christ, to whom such credit or reverence is to be given, that I say, if Bristol would burst for anger, against the Protestants, he shall never be able to prove.   

The 11. motive.  The practice or custom of the church of God. S. Paul and S. Augustine of our religion. Exorcism & exufflation in baptism. 
Bristol.  Pelagians alive again in Protestants. Baptism necessary for salvation of children. Change of religion never made by us. Altars & prayer for the dead used always. Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Pilgrimage relics of Saints. S. Hierom of our religion. Miracles for relics. Churches confirmed by miracles. What an impudent attempt is change of religion. 
Of the church's practice & custom I say, even as of the church's judgement, that how much soever it be to be esteemed, yet is not the Popish church the Catholic church of Christ but an apostasy & schism from it. Neither is it sufficient for Bristol to say, the Popish church practiseth many things that the ancient church of Christ practised, therefore it is the true church of Christ, except he can prove, that the Popish churchteacheth & practiseth all & nothing else but that which the ancient church of Christ did teach & practise. In stead whereof Bristol can allege nothing, but certain spots & wrinkles of the elder church, which the Popish church doth embrace, having almost nothing else like unto it. But let us see how substantially he proveth out of S. Paul & S. Augustine, that the church's custom and practice is an infallible rule of truth. First S. Paul (saith he) 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the uncomeliness of women's going bareheaded recoileth to this invincible fort. Si quis etc. But if any man seem to be contentious: we have no such custom (for women to pray uncovered) nor the church of God. See how this impudent ass, to 'stablish his ground of custom, is not ashamed to falsify the words of holy Scripture. S. Paul saith, if any man seem to be desirous of contention, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God, whereby he meaneth plainly, that it is not the custom of the Apostles, nor of the church of God, to be contentious about such small matters of external behaviour. May we hereof infer, that whatsoever the church at any time hath used, is allowable, & to be used always? S. Aug. Ep. 118. jan. is cited by Bristol but corruptly. Si quid tota per orbem frequentat ecclesia hoc quia ita ●aciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est. If the whole church do use any thing, only to call it in question whether that thing should be so done, is a point of most proud or most strange madness. But Augustine is not so general, for his words are, siquid horum, if any of these things, speaking of ceremonial observations, as of receiving the communion fasting etc. be universally used of all the church, when it is not contrary to the word of God, it were madness to strive about it. For in the first place, Augustine setteth the authority of God's word, & secondly the custom of the universal church being not contrary to God's word, & last of all, the customs of particular churches, which are varied according to the diversities of countries & nation's. Now for these matters in controversy between us, I answer, as Augustine doth to the question of januarius, immediately after the words cited by Bristol. Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris. But neither is this nor that, in the question that thou propoundest: that is neither the practice of the universal church, nor the authority of the Scriptures, serveth to decide this question but it is the third kind. So say I to Bristol, nether the authority of the holy Scriptures, nor the practice of the universal church, can be showed for these things, which thou defendest, but they are of a third kind, that is contrary to the word of God and the practice of the most ancient Primitive church But Augustine (saith Bristol) proveth that infants are borne in sin against the Pelagians, which are revived in protestāns, by the customs & practise of the church, which was to baptize them for remission of sins. And this practice he called the weight of truth, & a most plain bigness of truth. The slander, that Pelagians are alive in protestāns, by denying children to be borne in sin, I will no more esteem, than the barking of a dog against the moon. But where he saith, that Augustine by the only practice of the church, convinceth the Pelagians calling the practice pondus veritatis etc.: it is a shameless lie, for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunsti●antur enim & di●inarum auctoritate lectionun, & antiquitus tradito & retcnto firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum. For they are compassed about, both by the authority of the divine readings, & also by the steadfast practice of the church, delivered of old & retained in the baptism of infants. But he urgeth them with exorcism and exsufflation, which were there used in the church: I confess, but their meaning by exufflation & exorcism, he defendeth out of the Scriptures. And who can blame Augustine, if after he have mightily confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures, to show the novelty of their heresy, he alleged the perpetual practice of the church, which she always had & always shall have in praying for the conversion of infidels, & for the perseverance of the faithful in goodness. This is all one (saith Bristol) as if we should reason against these heretics out of private men's beads & out of the public prayers which are in the portuse or Breviary, or in the missal and such like books. The devil it is, except Bristol can prove, that such beads and prayers, were ever used in the church. For Augustine saith de bono persever. ca 22 Atque utinam tardi cord, & infirmi qui non possunt, velnon dum possunt Scripture as vel earum expositiones intelligere, sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras, ut magis intuer entur orationes suas, quas semper habuit & habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis, donec finiatur hoc seculum. And I would they that are dull of heart & weak, which can not, or as yet can not, understand the Scriptures or the expositions of them, would so hear or not hear our disputations in this question, that they would rather consider their own prayers, which the church always hath had & shall have, from her beginning until this world be ended. You see plainly, that Augustine joineth to the authority of the holy Scriptures, the perpetual practice of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remain unto the end. Which seeing it can not be showed for Popery, the argument of the practice of the church serveth not for Popery. Bristol proceedeth and passeth over the example of Christian women, which killed themselves, rather than they would have their bodies abused, yet notwithstanding by the church's judgement were honoured as martyrs To which I answer, the church considered their mind which was good, & not the fact which was evil. At last he cometh to affirm that the Popish church never made any change of religion. Which is a shameless assertion, although he say that none of his adversaries is able to charge them with any alteration since Augustine's time. For to omit the whole scope of doctrine, clean perverted, I will observe only the practice of the church in Augustine's time, about the Lords supper. In that time the lay people did receive the communion in both kinds and one thousand years almost after, which of late the Papists have altered. In Augustine's time, the communion was given to infants which the Papists do not observe, therefore they can not brag of perpetual practice and deny all change in religion made by them. But Bristol not content with this vain brag, will go farther and show that whatsoever they have used scythe S. Augustine's time, was observed even so in all that time that passed between S. Paul and S. Augustine. Is not this a master of impudence, to promise that which all the world of learned men doth know to be impossible to be performed, and whereof the promiser himself, can bring no proof at all but his bare word. For he beginneth with exorcism and exsufflation, which as it was used in Augustine's time unnecessarily, so it appeareth by Cyprian, that was long before him, that it was used for the casting out of the devil in them whose bodies he did sensibly possess. lib. 3. cap. 7. ad Magnum. Of the sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping of the Sacrament, and oblation for the dead, as Bristol referreth the reader to his fift and seventh motives so do I to mine answers unto the same. Concerning the use of the altar, how truly he saith, I refer the reader to mine answer of D. heskin's lib. 3. cap. 31. The other fond reason of the practice of the church, that children were taught to believe the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, for which he citeth Aug. de Tim. lib. 3. cap. 10. which the poor man borrowed out of Allens book of Purgatory, is discussed & answered in my confutation of the same treatise lib. 2 cap. 9 Then followeth going on pilgrimage, to holy places, worshipping of relics, prayer unto Saints, used (as he saith) in Augustine's time. For worshipping of relics and praying to Saints, he citeth Aug de c●re pro mor. Who concludeth that to be buried at some memory of the martyrs doth in this point only avail the dead, that the affection of supplication commending him also to the patronage of the martyr may be increased. That this was no perpetual practice of the church to desire the intercession of Saints, it is manifest by this, that Augustine himself dare affirm nothing certainly, whether or how the Saints may hear our prayers. Affirming that this question passeth the power of his understanding cap. 16. But by the name of memory, Bristol will understand relic, because it is sometime so used, which is no strong argument. But admit it were so, how can he prove, either that practise to have been continued from S. Paul to S. Augustine or the same opinion of relics to have been in Augustine's time, which is maintained in the Popish church? that there was superstitious peregrination unto jerusalem etc. used in S. hierom's time, it is as true as that the same was reproved of him Ep. ad Paul. If God showed any miracles at the dead bodies of the Martyrs, to confirm that religion for which they suffered against the Gentiles it followeth not that the relics of dead Saints are to be worshipped, kissed, sought unto by pilgrimage etc., but most absurd is it, that Bristol would have Jerome by often entering into the Cryptos or vaults of churches at Rome, to signify that he went a Pilgrimage. Jerome was not so gross, to account walking about the City to be a Preregrination. But what is so leaden or blockish, which these doltish Papists will not avouch for the maintenance of their trumpery. Last of all he chargeth the Protestants, with an impudent attempt, in making such an universal change of the whole face of Religion, which none of the old Heretics did before them. That we are like to none of the old Heretics, we like ourselves never the worse, but as concerning the universal change, it was necessary in reformation where there was an universal Apostasy. For any alteration that we have made, the Papists dare not affirm for shame, that we have brought any thing into the Church which ought not to be used by the word of God: neither are they able to prove that we have omitted anything, which by the holy scripture is necessarily required. To conclude, you see that the practice of the church, except it be perpetual, even from the first beginning, is no Motive by Augustine's judgement, and that Bristol though he hath bragged much thereof, for some superstitions used of old, yet he hath brought nothing, to prove that they have been from the beginning.   

The 12. Motive is the 28. demand.  Sea apostolic. The communion of the Bishop of Rome 
Bristol.  to be kept of all Christians. The Roman Church is the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine of our religion. Such as are condemned by the Sea Apostolic are holden for Heretics. Pelagians alive again in Protestants. Emperors and other peers of our Religion, as also their first conversion. S. Theodoret, Chrisostom, and Jerome of our Religion. Antichrist's side against the Pope. Protestants do decay and shall come to nothing. 
Whosoever (saith Bristol) at any time were for their doing or teaching condemned by the definitive sentence of 
Fulke.  the Sea apostolic, and stubbornly condemned the same, they were Schismatics or heretics. And contrariwise, all Catholic men have kept themselves in the unity of that sea, and if for any cause they were out of it, labouring to be reconciled again, or if they had been but suspected, never ceasing until they had made their purgation. Moreover he saith, there can none example be alleged to the contrary, but innumerable for it. It is not denied, but the Church and Sea of Rome, while it continued in true catholic Religion, was much reverenced every where, so far at least as the Roman empire did extend. But when any Bishop of that sea, went out of the way, either in schism or heresy, they were not followed but resisted, & condemned. For Example, When Victor bishop of Rome like a proud schismatic, did take upon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East, for celebration of Easter, they did not only contemn his censure, but many Bishops also did sharply rebuke him, as Irenaeus Bishop of Lions: & other. Euse. li. 5. ca 25. When Liberius bishop of Rome relented unto the Arrians, he was forsaken of the true Christians, and accounted an Heretic. Hier. in Catal. When Bonifacius, Zosimus and Celestinus, Bishops of Rome, would challenge appellations out of Africa, contrary to the decrees out of the counsels of Africa, by counterfeiting a Canon of the Nicene council, they were resisted by all the Bishops of Africa, and the treachery discovered. Caic. Aphric. ad. celest. To these examples add Pope Honorius, condemned in the general council of Constantinople the sixth, for a Monothelite. Even the popish council of Constans, deposed three Popes. But now let us see Bristow'S wise examples. The Pelagians (which he saith, but showeth not how) are alive in Protestants, were condemned by the apostolic Sea as witnesseth Augustine. Episto. 106. And this judgement of the Catholic Church, the Emperor Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine. What then? Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperors were of our Religion. If the Pelagians had been condemned by the authority of the bishop of Rome, without conviction out of the holy Scriptures, the Example had been to some purpose. But when their heresy was both by Preaching, writing, disputing and Council declared to be contrary to the word of God, then if the bishop of Rome subscribed to his condemnation, as one of the true patriarchs of the Church within the Roman Empire, what doth this advance the singularity of his Sea? For examples of Catholics purging themselves, first he nameth Chrysostom in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixth of Rome, but setteth down none of his words, as in deed there is no such matter in that Epistle, only he showeth how injuriously he was handled by the barbarous Soldiers. His next example is: Theodoretus bishop of Cyrus, who being unjustly deposed, appealed to Leo bishop of Rome, which considering of his case indifferently, consented to his restitution in the council of Chalcedon. But that Theodoret would not have accounted himself an Heretic or schismatic, although he had been condemned by Leo, it is plain by these words. Vestran enim expecto sententiam. etc. For I expect your sentence, and if you command me to stand unto that which hath been judged against me, I will stand unto, it neither will I trouble any man hereafter about it, but will expect the judgement of our God and Saviour, which cannot be altered. These words declare, that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also should be deceived to confirm his deprivation, by his sentence, yet he would not think himself to be an heretic, but quietly weight for the judgement of God, which could not be deceived, as the judgement of man was. Wherefore Theodoret was far from acknowledging those popish principles. That the Pope can not err, that his judgement is all one with the judgement of God. Although the mystery of iniquity in the Bishop of Rome's prerogative, had by that time wrought very high. The submission of Jerome to Pope Damasus, you shall find answered in my confutation of Saunders rock cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholic, while it was so in deed, and how Antichrist's side was against the Bishop of Rome, namely so long as the Bishop of Rome was on Christ's side. Whether Protestants in England have decayed and Papists increased, as Bristol braggeth, for these 16. years, let wise men judge. Although want of severe discipline hath caused many to remain obstinate, and some perhaps that were of no religion, to fall to Popery, yet for the number, it is altogether false, that Bristol so confidently affirmeth.   

The 13. motive is the 27. demand.  councils. The Apostles were of our religion. Parliament religion. The council of Trent. councils. S. Augustine's 
Bristol.  motive. 
Whosoever hath been condemned by any council (saith Bristol) general or provincial confirmed by the sea apostolic, 
Fulke.  They were heretics, nether can there against this be brought any exception. I will bring such exceptions, as Bristol for both his ears dare not affirm the parties so condemned, to be heretics. Liberius Bishop of Rome, was first a good Catholic, so far that for refusing to satisfy the Emperor Constantius, which required him to subscribe to the unjust deprivation of Athanasius, he was carried into banishment, and one Felix a good Catholic also, yet by faction of the Arrians, was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place. But afterward, Liberius solicited and persuaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Jerome witnesseth in cattle. and through weariness of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth, subscribed to the heresy of Arrius, and returned to Rome like a Conqueror. For whose return and deprivation of Felix, Constantius gathered a council, which was confirmed by Liberius, as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontifical. Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio & Valente, & eiecit Felicem de Episcopa●●s qui erat Catholicus, & revocavit Liberium. Constantius the Emperor held a council with the heretics and also with Vrsacius and Valens, and did cast out Felix which was a Catholic out of his bishopric, and called back Liberius. And again: Ingressus Liberius in urbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti, c●nsensit Constantio haeretico, non tamen rebaptizatus est, sed consensum praebuit. Liberius after he entered into the city of Rome the 4. of the nonce of August, he consented to Constantius the heretic, but yet he was not rebaptized, but he gave his consent. Let Bristol advise himself, which of the Popes he dare call heretic. If he condemn Felix and justify Liberius, then hath he S. Jerome against him and Pope Damasus, which can not err. Another exception I will bring of Pope Honorius the first, condemned and accursed for an heretic by the general council of Constantinople the sixth, confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by special words, pariterque anathematizamus novi erroris inventores etc. nec non & Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est. And likewise we accurse the inventors of the new error etc.: and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolic Church, with doctrine of apostolic tradition but by profane preaching went about to overthrow the undefiled faith. The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second council of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian. Notwithstanding all this, I would Bristol were so hardy on his head, to grant that Honorius was an heretic. I might join to these, three Popes condemned by the council of Constance, confirmed by Pope john 23. One of the three. also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the council of Basil, confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix. But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristow'S false principle. Now whatsoever he prateth of authority of councils, is to no purpose. For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ, with the Apostles, whom the fond man boasteth to be of their religion, because they held a council. Not considering how they determined the controversy, only by authority of the holy Scriptures, as it is manifest Act. 15. And what council soever followeth that rule, we gladly embrace, and that is the cause, why the parliament joineth, the four first general councils with the Scriptures, in trial of heresy, not that those counsels are of equal authority with the word of God, but in that they agree with the same, in condemning the heresies of Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius and Eutiches. That proud scoff of Parliament religion, bewrayeth the stomach of a Vauntparler, & not the spirit of a divine or good subject. Popery was also confirmed by Parliament in Queen mary's time, therefore it was Parliament Religion. But where as he would compare the last rabblement of Trent, in all points with those ancient holy Counsels, he doth even as much as if he would go about to prove an Ape to be a man. But I may not omit that in showing the necessity of the Pope's confirmation of Counsels, out of Annianus Marcellus, Lib. 15. He helpeth the matter with falsifying the writer, for he delivereth his words thus, auctoritate qua poti●res atern●e ●●●● Episcopi, with the authority in which the Bishops of the eternal city are better whereas the word is po●iuntur, by that authority which the Bishops of Rome have or do enjoy. But if we shall believe Marcellinus an heathen writer. Liberius Bishop of Rome, was of the same mind in condemnation of Athanasius, that the rest of the Bishops were, which proceeded against him, but that he thought it not reason, to subscribe to his condemnation before he had seen and heard him. For thus Ammon writeth. Hunc per subs●riptionem abiicere sede sacerd●tali, par●a sentiens c●eteris iubente principe, Liberius monitus perseucranter renitebatur, nec visum hominem nec auditum damnare nefas ultimum s●epe exclamans, apertè s●ilicet recalcitrans imperatoris arbitrio. Id enim ille Athanasio scmper infesius, linnet s●iret impletum, tamen auctoritate q●●a potiuntur aetern●e urbis Episcopi firmari d●siderio nitebat●r ardente. This man (speaking of Athanasius condemned before by a Synod of Bishops) Liberius being of the same opinion with the rest, warned by the Prince's commandment, did stiffly refuse by subscription to cast out of his priestly seat, crying out often times, that it was extreme wickedness, to condemn a man being nether heard nor seen, so openly kicking against the emperors pleasure. Who although he which being always an enemy to Athanasius, knew that it was already fulfilled, yet he laboured with earnest desire, to have it confirmed by the authority which the Bishops of the eternal city have. There can nothing else be gathered of this, but that Constantius, knowing Athanasius to be deprived by a council of Bishops of the East, would have Liberius Bishop of Rome, to consent to his condemnation, because Athanasius was one of the four Patriarches, & was not to be condemned, but by the rest of the patriarchs. Not that it was then thought, that all counsels were insufficient, except they had the Pope's confirmation, as Bristol doth dream.  
But Bristol saith, the Protestants regard no councils, because they suffer Lewis Euans in a naughty book to call the council of Chalcedon a blasphemous, proud, sacrilegious Antichristian Council. This Lewis Euans while he was a Papist, and did write from lovayne in defence of papistry, was accounted of you a learned man, a sober man, a godly man, but now that God in great mercy, hath opened his eyes to see and acknowledge the light of the Gospel, you rail on him and slander him at your pleasure. For if you had been able to justify your reproach, you would have noted in which of his books, seeing he hath written many, and in what leaf and line he had written so unreverently of that Council. Howsoever it be, he is able to answer you himself: Although if he have erred in the name or judgement of that council, it were small reason to charge all the Protestants in England, with one private man's error.  
The last is, that councils were S. Augustine's motive, because he writeth, that even provincial councils, must give place without all doubt to general councils. De bapt. count D●n. lib. 2. cap. 3. but what writeth Augustine immediately after? Ipsáque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod cla●sum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo trpo sacrilegae superbiae, sine inflata ceruice arrogantiae, s●ne ulla contentione liutdae invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace Catholica, cum charitate Christiana. Who knoweth not, saith Augustine. That even general councils are often times, the former corrected by the later, when by any trial of things, that is opened which before was shut, and that is known which before was hid, without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, without any swelling stubbornness of arrogance, without any contention of spiteful envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with christian charity. What say you Saint Augustine? have general councils often erred, that the former were corrected by the later? If you maintain this saying, you shall be no longer of Bristow'S religion.   

The 14. motive is the 26 demand.  The fathers. Pelagians alive in Protestants. The fathers. 
Bristol.  S. Augustine's motive. Protestants be ashamed of their fathers. Of what religion and authority the fathers were. L. Humfries opinion of jewels challenge of the fathers, and of the Saints in the Calendar. 
Bristol would have it considered whether ever any Catholic man in matters of faith, did obstinately refuse to 
Fulke.  believe the old fathers consenting in one and agreeing together, but only such as were heretics. I answer Bristol playeth the captious, and yet foolish Sophister. For in this first demand, he seemeth to understand all the old fathers consenting together, but in the rest of the chapter he plainly speaketh, but of some of the old writers: now there is great difference between all and some. For we deny nothing that all the old fathers did consent upon, although we deny some thing that some of the old fathers did allow. For example, we deny prayers for the dead, which some of the old writers did allow. But if Bristol would break his head in pieces with study, he shall never be able to prove, that all the old writers did maintain prayer for the dead, the like I say of prayer unto Saints, and of some prerogative of the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops, of some ceremonies etc.: which being the dregs of a great quantity of good liquor contained in the vessels of diverse of the old writers, and yet of the later sort of them, the Papists have only sucked out, letting all the good liquor to run beside them. And like impudent dogs yolpe & bark against us, that the fathers are all of their side, and contrary to us: with as good reason, as one that hath gotten the excrements of a man, should boast boast that he hath the same man in possession. I think the reader can not but laugh, when he readeth it so often noted by Bristol. Pelagians alive in Protestants. When of all old heresies we are further from none, nor Papists nearer to any, then to the heresy of the Pelagians. But why trow ye are Pelagians alive in Protestants? Because Augustine writing against julian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. saith of the fathers, Qu●d credunt credo etc. That which they believe I believe also. I hold that they hold, I teach that they teach, I preach that they preach, and lib. 2. quos opor●ct etc. Christian people ought to prefer the ancient holy truth, before your profane novelties and chose rather to stick to them then to you. And are Pelagians alive in Protestants, because Augustine receives the old writers, that were agreeable to the scriptures? Did not the Pelagians allege the authority of the old writers also? L●b cont. jul cap. 2. & 3, But what should I contend about that, which is so clear in Augustine. De baptism c●nt D●nat●si. cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat ●anctam scripturam canonicam tam r●t. ris quam novi testa●●●●, ●ertis s●is terminis contineri? camque omnibus postericribus Episcop●rum literis ita praeponi, ut de ill a omnino dubitari & d. s ep●ari non p●ss●t, utrum verum vel utrum rectūs● quilquox in ea s●riptum esse constiterit: Ep s●●porum autem literas que post confi●matum can●nem vel script●e sunt vel s●ri●untur, & per serm●nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti r●s, & per alioru●n Epis●●porum graviorem auctoritatem doct●orumque prudentiam, & per con●ilia li●ere repreh●ndi si quid in ●is forte à veritate deviatum est, & i●sa concilia etc. Who knoweth not, that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament, is contained in their certain bands: and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops, that of it there can be no doubt or question at all, whether that be true or right, whatsoever is known to be written therein. But as for the writings of Bishops, which since the canon is confirmed have been written, or b● now in writing, that by some speech perhaps more wise of any man that is more skilful in that matter, and by the more grave authority of other Bishops, and wisdom of them that are better learned, and by councils they may be reprehended, if any thing perhaps in them is gone a stray from the truth, and that eu●n those councils which are held in every region and province, without all controversy do give place to the authority of general counsels which are made out of all the Christian world, and that even the general councils are often times corrected the former by the later etc. as in the 13. motive. By which saying you may plainly see, how the old fathers were S. Augustine's motive, even none otherwise, than they are our retentive, to stay us in Christian truth, which they writ agreeable to the holy Scriptures, and therefore it is an impudent slander of Bristol both where he saith, that in our preaching and writing we think it not necessary to allege the testimonies of t●e old fathers, and also that in familiar talk among ourselves we are not afeard plainly to confess, that the fathers all were Papists.  
As vain a cavil it is, that the Protestants are ashamed of their fathers: When we acknowledge no fathers, unto whose judgement we will stand absolutely in all controversies, but the Prophets and the Apostles and God himself, by whose spirit they did write. As for Simon Magus, Eunomus, and such old heretics we detest, more than the Papists do. But AErius, Vigilantius, and jovinian were plainly of our opinion, and of them we are ashamed. And do you Papists believe nothing common with AErius, Vigilantius, jovinian? Do you in no point hold that which Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches did hold? Do you maintain no opinion which was taught by Mahomet himself? you will answer, that there never was heresy, but it h●lde and taught many articles of truth, which if you hold as they did, you are not therefore their children, in such articles wherein they were heretics. Even so we answer you of AErius, Vigilantius, jovinian, we are not ashamed to believe any truth which they held, their errors we leave unto themselves. But I know you will reply, that among the errors of AErius, the denial of prayers to profit the dead was one accounted by Epiphanius and Augustine. Then it is your part to show, what arguments out of the holy Scripture they bring to prove this opinion to be an error. Otherwise their authority alone, is not sufficient to make it a truth. Vigigilantius is baighted only by Jerome, of other learned men in his time, he was counted a godly man, and a learned. As for jovinian, we take not his part, if in all respects he made marriage equal with virginity, which in some respect the Apostle preferreth. But we must see of what religion and authority, the fathers were. First saith Bristol you may perceive by jewels challenge, that for Purgatory, prayer for the dead and to Saints, merit of good works etc. there is something contained in the old fathers which lived within 600. years after Christ, because he durst not make his challenge of these articles, but of the Mass, the Pope, the eucharist etc. But I pray you Bristol, are not these greater matters among you, than the other?  
If therefore you be not able to prove your greatest mysteries of antiquity, out of any one father for so many ages, what great matter is it, if you have them favourable in a few articles of less moment? But Bristol with weight of reason will bear us down, that all the fathers are on their side wholly, and against us in all points of our controversy. And this is his reason: who are driven to mayteyne the father's credit and authority, Papists or Protestants? Not Protestants verily, but Papists, ergo the fathers be all for Papists and against Protestants. A mighty reason of main force. Dioscorus and Eutyches in the council of Chalcedon boasted of the authority of the holy fathers, and stood much in defence of their credit therefore the fathers were wholly on their side.  
But let us hear L. Humfreys opinion out of his book of B. jewels life, of jewels challenge, of the fathers and of the Saints in the calendar. Nay rather let us hear Bristol yelping like a little cur against so great a lion. First he snatcheth pieces of his sentences gnawn from the rest, and then squeleth out as though he had heard some marvelous strange sounds. D. Humphrey saith, jewel gave the Papists too large a scope, when not content to have beaten them down with the authority of the holy Scriptures, he made his challenge upon the testimony of the fathers, and that so many hundredth years after Christ. And herein he was injurious to himself, that refusing that mean by which he might more easily & more straightly have maintained his cause, after a manner he spoiled himself and the church. This is his opinion of Master jewels challenge. How followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Saints in the calendar. This thing (saith D. Humphrey) he did not with his will, but yet he did it not without a cause, that he might strike you through with the testimony of your fathers, as it were with your own sword. For it had been manly for a Christian man to say. Thus saith the Lord. It had been sufficient to have laid against you. Your doctrine is contrary to the Scripture. For it is the question of men possessed with devils to say: What have we to do with thee jesus thou son of David? But it is an interrogation of the saints. What have we to do with our fathers with flesh and blood? You hear by these words, what a dangerous opinion he holdeth of the fathers and of the saints in the calendar, namely that the fathers are no farther to be followed, than they followed the holy Scriptures, and that the Saints either living or dead, whether they be in the calendar or no, deny their fathers as flesh and blood if they be in any respect an hindrance for them to obey the will of their father in heaven.  
These are the perilous opinions, that Bristol brableth against falsifying his words by ommission & depraving his meaning by false surmising.  
But Bristol hath yet an other reason to prove the fathers to be in all points of their side. If in all points (saith he) they be not with the Protestants, then undoubtedly in all points they be with us. And what is the reason of this monstrous conclusion? There was never but one true religion. As though none can be of true religion but such as erreth in nothing. But who would spend ink and paper to confute such vain reasonings.   

The 15. motive containeth the 15. 16. and 20. demands.  Martyrs. S. Stephen of our religion. Pilgrimage. Churches 
Bristol.  confirmed by vision. Miracles for relics and for necessity of children's baptis●ne. Confirming of children, the custom and practice of God's church. Fox's martyrs. Miracles for our martyrs. 
All martyrs that ever suffered for the testimony of true 
Fulke.  religion, since Abel, were numbered of one true church, even of the same that we are. But Bristol would bind us to the Saints in the calendar, termed by L. Humphrey Sāct●li, which term yea & a worse, might serve a number of them. Notwithstanding so many of those calenddred & canonised Saints as be Saints in heaven and not firebrands in hell, were of that church which is builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, jesus Christ being the head corner stone. And therefore it is a foolish request, that we should name any one of them, which was of our faith. But it is a pleasant pastime, to hear how Bristol proveth S. Stephen to be of his religion. It is manifest (saith he) that he is of the religion of the rest of the martyrs, meaning Papists, because it is proved, that he as well as they, had heard & helped them, which prayed to them, which worshipped their relics, & went a pilgrimage to their churches, & he specially revealing by vision, the place where his relics were hidden with the relics of S. Gamaliel, & S. Nicodemus: unto one Lucian, a Priest of ●erusalem, which wrote in Greek the history of his invention. To this invention, I answer, that it is an invention of the devil, either by means of him that counterfeited the vision, or by sending a strong illusion, & so ● say generally of all such miracles and visions, as are alleged, to prove any doctrine contrary to the holy Scriptures. As for the vanity of this epistle of Lucian, it be wrayeth itself in that he maketh Gamaliel the Pharizee, so great a Saint, who for any thing that we can read in the holy Scripture, was never a Christian. S. Paul in the 22. of the Acts, appealeth to the knowledge of the jews, that he was brought up in judaisme, under Gamaliel, which if after he had been converted to Christianity it should have been greatly suspected that S. Paul had been noselled up by him, and not converted by a vision from heaven, as his intent was to show.  
From this counterfeit stuff of Lucian's epistle, he sendeth us to the new found sermons of Augustine, to whom he would get credit, by Augustine's own report, De civit. 22. ca 8. but in vain, for Augustine speaketh not of any such sermons, but only, when report of a miracle was brought unto him, that he went unto the church & spoke a few things of the matter. And touching all such miracles as he reporteth of Stephen, his conclusion is this, God was glorified by them, and the faith for which Stephen died, was magnified. But of worshipping of relics, pilgrimage etc. there is no mention, and yet that chapter of miracles, as Ludovicus vives doth confess, is notably corrupted, as appeared to him, by ancient copies. The conclusion was, Quid erat in cordibus exultantium nisi fides Christi, pro qua Stephani sanguis fusus est? What was in the hearts of them that rejoiced, but the faith of Christ, for which the blood of Stephen was shed?  
The miracle which Bristol reporteth out of the 38. Serm. in divus & 96. in nova editione to prove the necessity of baptism for infants & the practice of the church for confirmation of children, & praying to S. Stephen is an impudent fiction, as appeareth manifestly by this, that he calleth a sucking babe Catechumenu, one that was instructed in Christian religion, which could not possibly be, before he was of years of capacity. Secondly the infant's ofChristian parents, in Augustins time, were baptized as soon as they were borne, & tarried not until they were Catechumeni, that is instructed. Thirdly the woman in this fable, praying to S. Stephen, persuadeth him to know the purpose of her heart, which the word of God affirmeth to be known only to God. As impudent as the deviser of that fable was, is Bristol, who citeth out of Augustine De ●nitat. eccles. cap. 16. a few words rend a sunder from the rest, concerning miracles, which the whole discourse, showeth to be plainly against him, as you may read in this answer in the 8. motive of visions. After this followeth a comparison of Fox's martyrs, with the Popish martyrs, Videlicet the good Earl of Northumberlande, Story, Feltons', Nortons', Wodhouse, Plomtree, and so many hundrethes of the Northern men, all rebels and traitors, yet (saith he) approved by miracles undoubted, but what miracles, he showeth not. To these he addeth Fisher, More, the Charterhouse monks etc. whose cause being sufficiently discussed by M. Fox, I refer to the judgement of indifferent readers. But this I can not omit that the traitorous Papist, flaundereth our state, not only for public execution of open rebels and errant traitors, but also with privy murdering, by poisoning, whipping, and famishing. From all suspicion of which wicked practices, God be praised, the states that are professors of the Gospel's, have always been as free, as the Papists both by story & living testimony may be proved guilty of them. And where he specially chargeth that learned and reverend Father M. Elmer now Bishop of London, with this devilish practice, noting these words in the margin, Let Elmer remember his Tragedy of the Scottishfriere at Lincoln. As I know not what colour he hath for so great and heinous a slander, so I nothing doubt, but that the same is utterly false and untrue, as a thousand more slanders and lies, Wherein the Papists, as Children of the Father of lies have so great delight. To conclude, seeing not the pain, but the cause maketh a martyr, whosoever have suffered for treason and rebellion, may well be accounted Martyrs of the Popisn Church, but the church of Christ condemneth such for enemies of Christ's kingdom and inheritors of eternal destructi●, except they repent and obtain mercy for their horrible wickedness. And seeing patiented suffering is by Bristows own confession, a gift of God, unto all true Martyrs, such as were manifestly void of patience, can be no true Martyrs, as were most of these rebels & traitors, & Story by name. Who for all his glorious tale, in the time of his most deserved execution by quartering, was so impatient that he did not only roar and cry like a hellhound, but also struck the executioner doing his office, and resisted as long as strength did serve him, being kept down by three or four men, until he was dead. O patiented martyr of the popish church. In the 15. & 16. demand, he asketh us whether we have not read in Chrysostom, Augustine, & others, that they used this argument to prove the divinity of Christ, that he hath advanced his servants to such honour, that they are prayed unto, & their graves honoured of kings & Emperors, & that miracles are wrought by the reliqus of their Saints, I answer we read sun such thing, although not altogether as Bristol reporteth, nor to that end. But what if among a great number of forcible aguments, they used also some such persuasions? should their reasoning be a prejudice to the truth of God revealed out of the Scriptures: whereunto if those holy man had had as great regard as they wish other men to have in their writing, and not suffered themselves to be carried away with common plausible errors, they should easily have espied that they gained not so much in reasoning so against the paynim, as they gave occasion of superstition among the Christians.  
And to answer the xx. demand, we are content to be tried by that doctrine for which the ancient Martyrs Irenaeus, Cyprian, Laurens etc. suffered persecution and Martyrdom, which was for no point of Popery but true christianity, yet will we not be tried by all points of doctrine which they did hold, for that it is certain, some of them had their errors which the Papists themselves do not hold, as Irenaeus is charged by Eusebius. l. b. 3. cap 39, to be a follower of the chiliasts. Cyprian did openly in a council, maintain rebaptising of them which were baptized by Heretics. Again we refuse not the trial of that docttine for which the Christians were persecuted by the Arrians in Africa, notwithstanding the term of Missa used by Victor that writeth that Story, by which term in that time, not the popish Mass (which then was not made, either in matter or form) but the celebration of the Communion and memory of the sacrifice of Christ, commonly called in deed, but unproperly a sacrifice, yet will we not be tried by all that they hold, for diverse errors of prayer for the dead and to the dead, were then received, neithet will the Papists be tried by that Religion they held in all points. For than were Bishops married. Lib. 2. &, 3. Then the Prayers were in the vulgar tongue, and all the people sung Hymns together, lib. 2. There is no reason therefore that the Papists should call us to such a trial as they dare not abide themselves.   

The 16. motive is the 30. Demand.  Their own Doctors. The discord of Protestants. Luther 
Bristol.  condemneth our Pretestantes. Carolstadians, Zwinglians, and Caluinists. Luther corrupteth the Scripture to help his heresy of the bread to be Christ's body. The head of the church to be a lay-man is against the Magdeburgenses and Caluine. The prophecy fulfilled in the accord of the Protestants and Puritants Parliament religion. The inconstancy of Protestants. What an impudent attempt is change of religion. True Christianity by Luther is under the Popedom. 
The discord of our own Doctors: Bristol would have to be a Motive against us. As though it were not 
Fulke.  as great a motive against them, whose Doctors descent as much as ours. To omit all other controversies, when will they be agreed whether the Pope be above the Council or the Council above the Pope. In which dissension they have not only Doctor against Doctor, but also Council against Council, and Pope against Pope, and Cardinal against Cardinal, as Constance and basil against Ferraria & Florence. Nicolaus & Felix with th●ir Cardinals, against, Eugenius and and his Cardinals. But now let us see what discord he findeth in our Doctors. Luther condemneth the Protestants, Car●●stadians, Zwinglians & calvinists in the cause of the Sacrament, The more was his immoderate heat and bitter zeal to be blamed, and their Christian modesty to be commended, which notwithstanding his overmuch vehemency in maintaining his error, yet accepted h●m always as a brother. The corruption of the Scripture wherewith he chargeth Luther, is a slander of his own, for Luther altered no words of Scripture, but declared his understanding of them, when he said, Take bread and eat ●his is my body. And this is the only discord that he can prove between the professors of the truth For it is a mere sophistry of the ambiguity of the word head of the Church, that maketh that show of contrariety between the Magdeburgenses, Caluine, and us, who in sense and meaning thereof, do perfectly agree as I have often showed. And Bristol cannot altogether deny where he derideth the Parliament Religion, and inconstancy of Protestants for changing the title of head into governor, and then expounding the government by injunction. Whereas in neither of both titles was any other meaning of the godly sort in the time of King Henry, King Edward or her Majesty, then is contained in that exposition. In deed Stephen Gardiner (as Caluine reporteth) at Ratisbone, abused the title of supreme head, not more wickedly than absurdly to defend all Papistry, which then was not abolished by king Henry. And against that gross error of Gardiner writeth Caluine and not against our understanding of that title. But the Apology prophesieth that shortly the Lutherans and Zwinglians should be accorded, which is fulfilled in the accord of the Protestants and Puritans, who in the demand he saith do abhor the title of supremacy, If I knew whom he did mean by Puritans, I might answer him the better, but seeing he maketh Protestants and Puritans members of a division, If he reckon the Puritans for such as be no Protestants, let them answer for themselves. If he calls them Puritans which desire to have the Church thoroughly reform, there is no such dissension between them, but that they all agree in the Articles of Faith, maintain brotherly concord one with an other, notwithstanding in diversity of opinions concerning the matters and manner of reformation. But what an impudent attempt is change of Religion, he will show us out of Luther, which writing against the anabaptists Anno 1528. affirmeth that much Christianity, and true Christianity is under the Popedom. If change of Religion be so impudent an attempt, why were the Papists finding Religion quietly established by law, so impudent in Queen mary's time, not only to attempt but also to bring to pass in deed an alteration of Religion. But the Popish Religion was true Christianity by Luther's confession. I answer, Luther did mean nothing less by that confession, then to defend any part of Popery to be Christianity, but writing against the anabaptists which would have all things abolished which the Papists used, he showeth that such parts and Articles of Christianity, which in general confession and acknowledging of the authority of the Scriptures, the Papists have common with us, are not therefore to be rejected, because of them they have been abused. Otherwise it is a poor Motive unto Popery, that Luther by these or any other words did ever minister unto you.   

The 17. Motive is the 11. Demand.  The Catholic faith in England mightily planted & lightly 
Bristol.  changed. S. Augustine the Apostle of Englishmen of what Religion and authority. Miracles for our whole Religion. saint Bede of our Religion. His story to be read of Englishmen. Images and Crosses confirmed by miracle. Prophecies and visions for our Religion. 
The Catholic Faith was purely planted in this 
Fulke.  Island by the Apostles even in the reign of Tiberius, as restineth Gildas, six hundredth years before Augustine came from Rome, bringing in deed with him the principal grounds of Christianity, and with all, much Monkish superstition. But that the Religion of Papistry differeth in as many points from that which Augustine planted, as Augustine's doth from ours, I have proved abundantly, in answer to Stapletons' Fortress, and briefly in the Table of differences. And in such points wherein we differ from Augustine, I have proved that Augustine differed from the Apostles. As for his Miracles affirmed by the Saxons, and denied by the Briton writers, shall still remain in controversy for me. As also his prophecy so termed by the Saxons, which the Britons affirm to be a threatening of cruelty, which he himself procured to be executed on the poor Students & ●●ergie of Bangor.  
In the demand, Bristol would know of us whether the Britain's by Eleutherius were converted to one faith, and the Saxons by Gregory and Augustine unto an other. But I have showed before that the Britanes were not converted by Elutherius, although perhaps the Church, which was more than an hundredth years of age in his time, might by him of charity be confirmed in truth, or admonished to beware of such heretics as then troubled the Church abroad. But I deny that Eleutherius maintained all that superstition, which Augustine brought in. And I affirm that ●●●● Britons church in Augustine's time, differed in more things then in the celebration of Easter, from the Romish Church, as I have showed in that confutation of Stapleton, even by testimony of Bede himself: Although I will not deny, but there might be some corruption even among the britains also, as there were that maintained the heresy of the Pelagians. Wherefore into that Catholic faith, which was first mightily planted in this land by the Apostles of Christ, and not of Gregory, through the most weighty arguments taken of the authority of the holy Scriptures, is this realm by the great mercy of God, returned, from the schism and heresy of Antichrist, & so I hope shall remain, even until the second coming of Christ.   

The 18. motive is the 3. demand.  Going out. S. Optatus motive. The church's practice is always infallible. The unity and constancy of the Bishops 
Bristol.  of England. Protestants do decay and shall come to nothing. 
We like Optatus Motive well, for going out of the 
Fulke.  Church into any other faction. But it may not be drawn contrary to his meaning against those which go out of Babylon into jerusalem. He saith, We must see who hath remained in the root with the whole world. Verily not the Papists, which are departed from the doctrine of the Apostles which is the root of the Church, by them planted in all the world. We must see who is gone forth. which Bristol doth rightly refer to that saying of Saint Paul. Discedent quidam à fide, Some shall depart from the Faith. But who are those? They that teach the doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats. Now whether Papists or protestants be such, let the world judge. Optatus will have it farther considered, Who is set in an other Chair that was not before? Verily none so manifestly as the Pope, who sitteth in a Chair, that none of the Apostles, nor apostolic men, for many hundredth years after Christ did know.  
Again, Who hath set an Altar against the Altar? who but the Papists, which have erected the Sacrifice of the Mass, to overthrow the Altar of the cross of Christ? Finally, Who hath made an ordination, the other before ordained, being whole & sound. Quis ordinationem fecerit saluo altero ordinato. Which Bristol hath falsely translated thus. Who hath placed Bishops there, where others were placed before which are yet alive. As though it were a fault, to put out false Bishops, and to supply the rooms with true Bishops, where as Optatus meaneth of Heretics, which are gone from true bishops, and set up Heretics in schism, the true Bishops still remaining as the Papists did in Queen mary's time, until they had burned up almost all.  
As for the unity and constancy of the popish deposed Prelates, which he commendeth, is sufficiently known to the world, which although they were all save one obstinate in the beginning of her majesties reign, because they hoped by traitorous practices, foolish prophecies, & devilish conjuration, to see an alteration shortly, aswell for religion, as also for the whole state of the common wealth, and withal had experience of the mercifulness and compassion of the Kings of Israel, so that they were not in fear of their lives, or any great hazard of their goods, yet had they all or the most part of them (such was their good constancy) revolted from popery, and sworn against the Pope, in the reign of King Henrye and King Edward. As for the decay of Protestants and professors of the truth of God's word, which the cold prophet foreseeth, by some traitorous devise, whispered among his pewfellows at lovayne or Douay, it shall have such success and event by God's grace, as hitherto the like treasonable practices have obtained, which always, (Gods holy name be praised therefore) hath turned to the confusion of Popery and the further spreading of the light of the Gospel.  
In the demand, he urgeth us to show when the Romans went out of the truth, forsaking any company of Christians then living. This hath been often showed, that the Romans though not all at once, yet by little and little, even as the mystery of iniquity got strength, which began to work in the Apostles time, have departed from the communion of other Christians. The first story that maketh notable mention, is Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. of Victor which did cut himself from all the Churches of the East about a ceremony, since which time, the Roman Bishops, by little and little, have departed until they made a general apostasy and defection, from the universal Church, condemning all the Christians in the world, except such as held of their particular schismatical and heretical Church of Rome.   

The 19 motive is the 4. demand.  Rising afterward. Saint Ireneus and tertullian's motive. 
Bristol.  
He spendeth much labour in vain, to prove that 
Fulke.  the first religion is the only true religion, and that all sects that arise after, are false, which we grant most willingly with Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Scripture itself. But he hath not one word to prove, that our religion is of a later springe, than the Apostles, and therefore like an ass, he flieth to their common stable, saying that Luther lived but yesterday, as though Luther were the first author of our religion. Which if it be not as ancient as Christ and the Apostles, might easily be confuted by the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, contained in the holy Scriptures.   

The 20. motive is the 5. demand.  Beginning with wondringe and gainsaying of Christians 
Bristol.  then in unity, which is saint Irenaeus motive. 
Our religion of Christ revealed in the flesh, began with wondering and gainsaying of Scribes, & Pharisees, 
Fulke.  as it is manifest by the history of the Gospel, Mark 1. yet was not the doctrine of Christ new or strange, but newly begun to be restored, which was by them corrupted, so is the same now wondered at, and gainsaid by their successors, the Papists, but of true Christians it is nether wondered at, nor gainsaid, contrariwise the heresy of Papists, in many points was wondered at and gainsaid by true Christians, which Bristol saith, we can not prove to be in any one. For example, I will name one of the chiefest articles which they hold, namely, the Pope's supremacy, upon which all the rest in  
Eusebius testifieth, that when Victor Bishop of Rome, which was the first that challenged any supremacy took upon him to excommunicate the Churches and Bishops of Asia, about the celebration of Easter: His presumption was wondered at and gainsaid, not only by those Churches and their Bishops, but even by others near hand, as by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France, which sharply reproved him therefore, more than two hundredth years after, when Zozimus & other Romish Prelates made claim to a kind of supremacy, in resisting appeal out of Africa, and for that purpose, had counterfeited a decree of the Nic●ne council: They were wondered at and gainsaid by the whole council of Carthage. The like might I show, for worshipying of Images, the real presence transubstatiation etc. But where he sayeth that all heresies were wondered at and gainsaid, immediately after they arose, it cannot be proved. Nor that all was Heresy that was gainsaid by them that were in unity.  
For the baptism of Heretics was gainsaid by Saint Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africa, yet was it none heresy, that Infants might be savedwith out receiving of the communion, was gainsaid by Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and by S. Augustine and by all the church, that was at unity against the Pelagians. August, contra duas epistolas Pelag. ad Bonifacium. lib. 2. Cap 4. Yet was not that opinion than held by the Pelagians otherwise horrible Heretics and heresy, but that which the Bishop of Roms & the rest of the known visible church did hold, was an error whereby you may see, how truly the commandment of Christ unto Peter, to confirm his Brethren after his conversion doth give the Bishop of Rome ' power never to be deceived. nor to fall into error. And that the Church may be the pillar and stay of truth, although the chief members thereof, and generally all that are known to be members thereof may be taken in some particular error.   

The 21. Motive is the 42. demand.  Unsent. Orders. Protestants allow better of our orders than of their own. 
Bristol.  
Whereas Bristol chargeth us to be unsent, it is nothing else, but a popish slander and petition of principle, 
Fulke.  for we are called and sent ordinarily by the Church and elders of the same, to preach the word of God and to minister the Sacraments. Neither are we ordained by a lay Prince, as he like a lewd Papist doth slander both our Christian Prince and us. And although the Prince by letters Patents hath sent some to preach and visit the Churches of her dominions, yet she hath done it by authority of the word of God and by example of godly Princes, josaphat and other 2. Chro. 17. not taking upon her to execute any ecclesiastical function, but according to her kingly authority in causes ecclesiastical.  
And where Bristol saith we allow better of their popish orders, then of our own, seeking as much as we can possible, to be consecrated by one of their orders, except it be some such proud hypocrite as Bristol is, that so judgeth and seeketh, it is a most abominable lie. For withal our heart, we abhor, defy, detest and spit at your stinking greasy antichristian orders. Neither doth our Church receive any of your execrable, ordering to minister in the Church before they have solemnly by oath renounced your antichrist, and publicly as well professed to embrace all true religion, as Protested that in their conscienses they defy all papistry and other heresies. Although many godly men wish, yet a more severe discipline in examining and receiving such as come our of your heresy, to serve in the Church of God.   

The 22. motive is the 43. demand.  Suceession. S. Optatus motive. The Church is everlasting & visible. S. hierom's & S. Augustine's motive. the Church everlasting. 
Bristol.  The communion of the B. of Rome, to be kept of all Christians. Succession in the see apostolic. tertullian's and Augustine's motives. 
That the Church is everlasting, Bristol need not have taken such pains to prove, & that this continuance 
Fulke.  is preserved by succession, is also to be confessed. But that this succession is visible, & limited to any one sea of bishops, it is false. For even as he himself saith it is necessary that all Adam's children to be come of Adam by a continual pedigree of fathers and grandfathers and other progenitors, even until his time, and yet no one of Adam's children can deduce this pedigree by naming of all his progenitors from Adam unto his time so there is no doubt, but the Church hath had a perpetual succession in the world, from the beginning thereof, until this day, although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place, for all ages that are past. But even as by the Scriptures we are taught, that Adam is our natural father, although we can not name all our ancestors that have been between us and him: right so by the Scriptures we are taught, that the Church is our heavenly mother, although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papists require us to show, which they can not perform themselves. For although they can name a number of Bishops, whereof some have taught at Rome, some have sitten and slept in their chair at Rome, and some at Auynion, some have played the devil therein, an hundredth of the last being no more like to a score of the first in doctrine and life, than God, whose children the first were, is like the devil whose derlings the last were: yet what is this to show a succession of their Church. And how doth this prove them to be the true Church: can not the Church of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece, do the like unto this day? Yet do the Papists count all them for heretics and schismatics. Whatsoever therefore Optatus, Hierom, Augustine, Tertullian, or any other have written of succession of Bishops in the apostolic sees, they mean so large and so far forth as they continue in succession of apostolic doctrine. Otherwise would not Hierom have embraced Arrianisme, because it was received by Liberius who sat in the apostolic see of Rome, and could name his predecessors from Peter. Nor Optatus have received Eutychianisme, because it was defended by Dioscorus, which sat in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria, and could name his predecessors from S. Mark the disciple of S. Peter. Nether would Augustine have consented to Arrianisme, because it was maintained by Eulalius and Euzoius, Bishops of the apostolic see of Antioch, although they were able to show their succession by many Bishops, even unto S. Peter himself, who planted his chair at Antioch, by all Papists confession seven years before he came to Rome. You see therefore how far the motive of succession may draw or drive any man to have regard unto it, even as long, as there is succession of doctrine, as well as of place and person, and not longer, nor further.   

The 23. motive is the 44. demand.  apostolic Church. The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians. apostolic Church is the Roman 
Bristol.  Church. apostolic Church as the Roman is S. Augustine's motive. Succession of the Bishops of Rome, the motive of Optatus, S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus. 
This motive in effect, is all one with the former, and in a manner so confessed by Bristol himself. But thus he taketh his principle of their singing in the Mass, & our saying in the communion, of the creed, in which we confess that we believe one only Catholic and apostolic Church. This one Catholic Church saith Bristol is our Church that is apostolic, because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome, which is the sea of an Apostle, holding on to this day by succession, and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle. I answer, it is not the popish Roman Church, because that Church is departed from the universal Church of Christ, planted by the Apostles through out the world, and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle, which did write that epistle to the Romans. But Bristow'S wise reasoning, is to be noted. S. Peter was an Apostle. That is true. he was the first Bishop of Rome. It is a great doubt, whether he ever came at Rome, and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures, that he tarried not there so long as the histories affirm, and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church, which was an Apostle over all the world, and specially over the circumcision. There is a city in the world named Rome. And that city by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon. Apoc. 17. verse. 18. S. Paul's epistle to the Romans is extant. and even that epistle will prove the Church of Rome at this day, to be not apostolical but apostatical, as in many articles, so in the article of justification. Rom. 3. verse. 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called apostolic, saith Bristol? No verily but only because it holdeth and maintaineth the apostolic doctrine, which if it do in all necessary articles, then is it apostolic, & hath succession and plantation of the Apostles, or else not, although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles have preached, planted, and to whom they have written. But Tertullian doth so define apostolic Churches, saith Bristol. I say it is untrue, for Tertullian against new heretics, sendeth us not to the empty chairs of the Apostles, which had written to such cities, but unto the the testimony of their doctrine, received from the Apostles, and continued until that time.  
So he sendeth them that are in Achaia, to Corinthe. such as are in Macedonia to Philippi, those that are in Asia to Ephesus, & them which be near Italy to Rome, from whence they of Africa had their authority, not by excellency of that Church above other apostolic Churches, but by nearness of place: Therefore he saith, Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longè es à Macedonia, habes Philippos. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum, si autem Italiae adieceris, habes Romam, unde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta. Is Achaia nearest unto thee? thou hast Corinthe. If thou be not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thoulye near to Italy, thou hast the Church of Rome from whence unto us also (in Africa) authority is settled nearer at hand. Tertul. de praeser. But Bristol saith that the ancient fathers when there were many apostolic Churches standing, they did principally and singularly direct men always to the Church of Rome. This you see to be false, by the place of Tertullian last cited. But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome, it was for that by means of the Imperial city, it was more notorious and best known. Otherwise it is a very lie of Bristol, where he saith, that when the father's name the apostolic church, they do mean the Roman church by excellency, as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle. A like lie it is, that no Church remaineth in the world founded by any of the Apostles, but only Rome. For many Churches remain to this day, that were planted by the Apostle Paul, who from Jerusalem to Illyricum filled all the country's with the doctrine of the Gospel: of which many unto this day continue in profession of Christianity, beside all the Churches of India & AEthiopia, which were also planted by the Apostles Thomas and other. The more beastly is the blundering of this Bristol, who dreameth, that the council of Constantinople the 1. which made this confession by the apostolic Church, did not only mean the Roman Church, but also none other but the Roman Church.  
As though that council could not distinguish the Catholic apostolic Church, dispersed over all ●●●● face of the earth, from the particular apostolic Church of Rome, which was but a member therereof: when the same council gave the like privileges of honour to the Church of Constantinople, which the Church of Rome had, reserving but the seniority to the Church of Rome. And being called to a council at Rome by the Prince's letters, procured by Damasus Bishop of Rome, & other Bishops of Italy & the West, they refused to come, as having already by the Emperor of the East being gathered to Constantinople, concluded what they thought good to be decreed, Histor. trip. lib. 9, cap. 13. And in their epistle written to their fellow ministers Damasus, Ambrose etc. gathered in council at Rome, wherein they excused their refusal to come, they call the Church of Antiochia, seniorem & vere apostolicam Ecclesiam, the elder, & truly an apostolic Church. The church of jerusalem they call the mother of all Churches. Ep. Concil. Constanti. Hist. trip. lib. 9 cap. 14. Nether was it ever in their mind, to make the particular Church of Rome, the only apostolic Church of the world, but only a principal member consenting with the same. The succession of bishops of Rome alleged by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Optatus doth nothing in the world defend the popish bishops in their succession unto this day, for so much as they succeed not in doctrine, as well as in place. Nether do we make any leap from Luther unto the Apostles, but proving our doctrine to be the doctrine of the Apostles, we doubt no more of perpetual succession thereof, then knowing ourselves to be descended from Adam, we doubt whether we have had a line all descent of progenitors unto this time, that I may use Bristow'S own example, to declare that numbering of Bishops is no more necessary in the one, than showing our pedegrie in the other. Seeing the question is not how many men, & in what places were professed this doctrine, but whether it be the same which ●●●● Apostles taught: but that can not better be proved, then by the writings of ●●●● Apostles.  
The places cited by Bristol for succession out of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus, Augustine you shall find answered in my confutation of Stapletons' fortress part. 2. cap. 1. & of Sanders rock cap. 15. where also is answered the place of S. Luke cap. 22. of Christ praying that Peter's faith might not fail.   

The 24. motive ●● the 45. demand.  The Romans never changed their religion. S. Bede of our 
Bristol.  religion, the Roman church his motive, protestāns be of many old heresies. The Apostles were of our religion. Prayer for the dead used always. 
If the Romans had not changed their religion since 
Fulke.  their faith was commended by the Apostle, there should be no controversy between us & them. And if Bristol can prove by the Apostles writing that he is of their religion, or that they were of the Popish religion the strife is at an end. How far B●de was of your religion, I have showed in the answer to Stapletons' fortress. But he urgeth us to show, what Pope changed their religion, what tumults rising in the world thereon, what Doctors withstood it, what counsels accursed etc. which he saith they can show in all innovations both great & final, that ever by heretics were attempted. What an impudent liar is this Bristol to brag of that, which at this day is impossible to be done, by any man living in the world. For of so many heretics as are rehearsed by Epiphanius & Augustine, not the one half of them can be so showed as Bristol like a blind bayard boasteth they can do. But if we say the change was not made all at once we must show when every piece was altered, as they do of our doctrine, of old taught by many old heretics, AErius denying prayer for the dead etc. Whereof many are slanders & lies, the rest if we can not defend by Scriptures let them be taken for heresies. To the purpose, we have often showed and are ready daily to show, the beginning of many of their heresies, & errors, as of the Pope's supremacy in Victor, of prayer for the dead in the Montanists, of their crossing in the Valentinians, of images in the Gnos●ikes and Carpocratians, and so of a great many other errors, which are contrary to the holy Scriptures, by which we first reprove them of falsehood, and as stories serve us, we open their beginnings. And whereas Bristol without all shame, affirmeth that prayer for the dead was used always, & citeth Irenaeus among other for his auctor he showeth nothing but impudence matched with his heresy, for there is no word in Ireneus, to prove that prayer for the dead was used of any godly man of his time.  
Tertullian a Montanist is the first that maketh any mention of prayers for the dead, & only in such books as he wrote when he was an heretic. Whereas Augustine saith Ep. 119. That the church of God nether approveth, nor keepeth secret, nor doth such things as be against the faith, and good manners, it is to be understanded of such things, as the church knoweth to be against the faith. For of some things the church may be ignorant, as Augustine confesseth in his retractations lib. 2. cap. 18. Vbicunque in his libris commemoravi ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut ruga● non sic accipiendum est, quasi iam sit, sed quae praeparatur ut sit, quando apparebit etiam gloriosa. nunc enim propter quasdam ignorantias & infirmitates me●brorum su●rum, habet unde qu●tidie tota dicat: dimit nobis d●bita nostra. Wheresoever in those books I have made mention of the church, not having spot or wrinkle, it is not to be taken, as though she were so now, but which is prepared that ●he may be when she shall appear also glorious: For now because of certain ignorances and infirmities of her members, even the whole church hath cause to say every day, forgive us our trespasses. Notwithstanding the watchmen therefore prophesied by Esay, continually giving warning upon the walls against the invasion of open enemies, and blasphemous heretics, yet many hypocrites have crept into the church secretly, and under show of piety, have showed many errors and superstitions, while the mystery of miquity wrought the full manifestation and Apostasy of Antichrist. In the demand Bristol denieth that any Pope did err, although I have showed both out of stories, S. Hierom, the Pope Damasus, and the general counsels, the contrary. But admitting they did err, yet (saith he) they erred not in such matters as the Protestants do now charge the Pope & Romans withal. Whereto I answer, that against that blasphemous principle of theirs, that the Pope can not err, we first bring in those examples of Popes, that were heretics & for their time altered religion like heretics in such matte●s as we both confess to be errors. Then this being obtained, that the Pope is not privileged from error, the matters in controversy wherewith we charge the Pope, are to be examined only by the authority of the holy Scriptures and thereby to be decided.   

The 25. motive is the 9 demand.  The conversion of Heathen nations. calvin's Legates in 
Bristol.  India. The discord of Protestants. Jesuits Friars preaching in India. Miracles for our whole religion. The Apostles were of our religion. The church is everlasting and visible. 
All nations that were at the first converted to the true faith of Christ were converted by the Apostles, whose 
Fulke.  faith and doctrine we hold, and will prove by their writings that we hold none other. As for the argument of ●ryers preaching in India & miracles wrought so far hence, with such great conversion of the Indians unto Popery, if it were true, yet proveth it no more than the preaching and miracles of the false Apostles Phil. 1. and the conversion of the Goths and Vandals Crepides etc. by the Arrians and other nations by Nestorius etc. doth prove those false Apostles to be true Apostles, or the heresies of the Arrians etc. to be true doctrine. Wherefore not the Papists, but the Apostles of Christ, were his witnesses, unto the uttermost places of the earth. But of this matter of conversion, and all things contained, you may read somewhat more at large in mine answer to Stapletons' fortress, where the same is handled. part. 1. cap. 16. & 17.   

The 26. Motive is the 18. 13. and 14. demand.  By what religion hath Idolatry been destroyed. Prophecies for our religion. Protestants be possessed with devils. 
Bristol.  Churches confirmed by miracles. Devils expelled by relics. devils are in heretics. S. Jerome of our religion. The martyrs of our religion. Vigilantius alive again in Protestants. S. Augustine & Chrysostom of our religion. The honour and virtue of Saints relics. S. Augustine's motive for which Christ is to be believed. Our religion an invincible motive to forsake idols and believe in Christ, who is to be believed for the virtue of the sign of his cross, which working miracles, was the motive of Lactantius. The real presence of Christ in the sacrament. The cross and the mass confirmed by S. Bernard, in Italy. S. Cyprian of our religion. The jews religion changed into ours by Christ etc. 
In this motive is much babbling, but no matter at all. 
Fulke.  The sum of that he would prove is this. That Popery is not idolatry, as we charge it because by Popery Idolatry hath been destroyed. Although this argument is nought, because one kind of Idolatry may destroy an other, yet it is falsely affirmed, that Popery hath destroyed all idolatry. That Popery hath destroyed idolatry: Bristol will prove by three examples, the one of the relics of Saints, and the honour of them, the other of the sign of the cross and the honorthereof, and the last by the real presence in the Sacrament, which he calleth his Lord and his God. But our Lord and God is in heaven according to the Psalm. 115. The destruction of idolatry by Christ in deed was prophesied therefore the Pope setting up and maintaining as gross idolatry almost as ever was any of the Pagans, showeth himself to be a very Antichrist. But to the purpose Hierom lib. 28. in Isa. cap. 65. saith that the heretics in France were possessed with the devil which could not abide the might and whips of the holy ashes. If he spoke this against Vigilantius, & other godly men, which reproved the immoderate honouring of relics and other superstitions, he spoke of his own judgement, and not of the judgement of the church. For he only of all writers of his time, counted Vigilantius an heretic as he did Ruffinus also, which yet is taken for as good a Catholic as he. It is known how he taunteth and scoffeth at Augustine. Wherefore his censure is not sufficient to make Vigilantius opinion heresy, nor them heretics which were of his judgement. But admit this judgement of Hierom to be sound, yet was not the honour and estimation of relics which he defendeth, against Vigilantius the same, which is in Popery, but much differing there from. For thus he writeth ad R●panum contr. Vigilant. Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias, sed ne solem quidem & ●unam, non Angelos non Archangelos non Cherubin, non Seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur & in pr●esenti saeculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne seruiamus potius creaturae quam creatori qui est benedictus in saecula. But we worship and adore. I say not the relics of the martyrs, but not the sun & the moon, not the Angels not Archangels, not Cherubin, not Seraphim, & every name that is named both in this world, and in the world to come lest we should serve the creaturerather than the creator which is blessed for ever.  
By this you may see that the honour they gave to relics was but a reverent estimation of them, for Christ's sake, whose servants the Martyrs were, and a less honour than they gave to the Sun and the Moon, as is manifest by his gradation, and consequently no religious worship. As the Papists use and maintain of the relics, not of saints, but oftentimes of devils incarnate, of beasts and all manner of feigned babbles. Nether is there any thing more monstrous in popery, than their shameless feigning of infinite relics. That Augustine writeth that devils were tormented and expelled, at the memories or burials of the martyrs, where sometimes idols were worshipped, it proveth that idols were destroyed by Popery. For if God wrought miracles at such places, where the bodies of his Martyrs slept to confirm the faith, for which they died, doth this make any thing for Popery? But the same Augustine to the Maudaurenses that were Pagans, and other heathen men useth the argument of the greater honour and reverence done by Kings and Emperors at the tombs and memories of the Saints and Martyrs, and of miracles wrought at the same places, to show the power of Christ to the confusion of idolatry. This we grant, but how doth Popery overthrow Idolatry? There reverence although in sun respects superstitious, was far from popish Idolatry, of worshipping of Saints, Images, bones, etc., as we have showed even now out of Hierom the most eager defender of those uses and abuses in his time: The miracles approved none other doctrine, than the martyr's died for, who died for none other doctrine, but such as is contained in the holy Scriptures, in which Popery hath no ground. The like I say of the story of the body of Babycas the martyr, in presence whereof, the oracle of Apollo could not speak. But Chrysostom to draw m●n from all kind of idolatry, sent them from relics. In Gen. Hom. 15, Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer, & to the graves of the martyrs not to worship them, as Papists do, but by such things to receive blessing and to keep themselves from being entangled with the snares of the devil, while they be put in mind of the virtue of the martyrs, to follow their godly conversation. And albeit there were some superstition in that regard of martyrs troubles & memories, as in that age there was, yet doth it not follow, there was all Popery, nor such gross idolatry as Papists do commit with their counterfeit rehques. Finally the miracles wrought by God at the dead bodies of the Saints, might well be used by Augustin, Chrysostom, & Theodoret against the gentiles, asan argument to overthrow their idolatry, even as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not thereof, that idols should be made of their laws, by worshipping them as the Papists do. For the bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle taken out of his grave & shined in gold, divided into many churches worshipped, licked, and kissed, as the Popish guise is. The same answer I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the sign of the cross, which was the motive of Lactantius. I say they prove not that the sign of the cross should be worshipped, no more than the miracles wrought by God, with the brazen serpent, were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brazen serpent. Reg.  
And as touching the blessed Sacrament, which Bristol blasphemously calleth his Lord and God, although the real presence and transubstantiation were granted, forasmuch as the Papists themselves affirm the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the sign, but no accidents are God or in God: If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration thereof, as Augustine and Cyprian seem to avouch, yet neither is the real presence proved by those miracles, nor they tried to be Papists, for writing of such miracles, of which if any man will see more, let him resort to mine answer unto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. & lib. 3. cap. 42.  
Unto the story of S. Bernard's life we give no credit, as to a counterfeit fable, and as little to the report of M. Points, i● his book of the real presence testifying the casting out of many devils, by virtue of the same sacrament. Finally it is alltogeather false, that he sayeth, the jews religion was changed by Christ into Popery. For the sacrifice of Christ's death, against which the sacrifice of the Popish mass is blasphemous, hath taken away all sacrifices & ceremonies of the law. Heb. 9 Concerning the Altar which Christians have, whereof they have no power to ca●e which serve the Tabernacle, Heb. 13. mine answer is against Heskins. lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text & argument is handled of purpose.   

The 27. motive is the 35. demand.  Unity of the church a motive to believe in Christ. The discord 
Bristol.  of Protestants, the inconstancy of Protestants. 
Our Saviour Christ prayeth that his disciples may be 
Fulke.  one in God & him their redeemer. And this unity all Protestants retain, notwithstanding diversity of opinion in one article, & any contention about ceremonies. Even as the Apostles were one, in one God and Christ, although there was variance about Circumcision & ceremonies. Cyprian & Cornelius, the Roman church & the church of Carthage, were at unity in Christ, although the one of them erred in the sacrament of baptism. So were Jerome, & Augustine, although they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peter's dissembling & translation of the Scripture. From this verily I except such schi●inaties, as delight in contention, which have always been against the true church. As for the unity of the Papists, seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ, it proveth no more, that they are those for whom Christ prayed, than the unity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand years, have kept greater unity than the Papists, whose church hath been rend a sunder into so many heads as there have been Popes at once, and that very often and for many years together there have been Pope against Pope, council against council, Doctors against Doctors, orders against orders, Canonists against Divines, dissenting in articles of faith, as of the Pope's supremacy, of original sin, of transubstantiation etc. Wherefore Christian unity, is as untruly denied unto us, as falsely challenged unto them whatsoever he prateth of Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Protestants and Puritans.   

The 28. and 29. motives are contained in the 34. demand.  judges infallible in cases of controversy. The church's 
Bristol.  judgement is always infallible. Obedience of catholics to their superiors both ecclesiastical and temporal. Trinitaries. 
Bristrow braggeth that their church hath judges infallible in cases of controversy, and ours hath not. But 
Fulke.  who be their judges? The Pope or the general council? Whether soever of these be, neither is irrefragable. For both have been controlled and found fault withal, as I have showed before, and they themselves are together by the ears, whether of these is irrefragable, because the council hath deposed the Pope, & the Pope hath not obeyed the council, as it is manifest between Eugenius the 4. and the council of Basil. How infallible the church's judgement is and always hath been, it serveth not the Romish synagogue, until she prove her doctrine to be agreeable to the Scriptures, which seeing she neither can do, nor dare abide the trial of them, she showeth plainly, that she is not the church of Christ. As for the authority of synods such as that of the Apostles was, which determined the controversy by authority of the holy Scriptures, protestāns do gladly acknowledge, how necessary it is for the church to decide controversies and do willingly submit themselves thereto. The subjection of Papists to their judges, doth no more prove their religion to be true, than the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors, both in cases of religion, and of the common wealth, doth justify their sect to be the religion of God. What Trinitaries & other sectaries be in Polonia, or elsewhere, that will not submit themselves to any authority, as they are no part of our church, so we have no cause to excuse or defend them. In the demand, Bristol complaineth of an unlearned Christian, which hath been suffered to write a vain libel against the authority of the church of God, which is a vain lie, for there is no true Christian learned or unlearned, which will hold against the church of God, so long as she is directed by the word of God, as the true church is in all matters necessary unto salvation. But perhaps the unlearned Christian hath challenged the church of Rome to approve her doctrine by authority of God's word. Which because the Papists dare not attempt, Bristol requireth I can not tell what approbation & privilege of the said libel, to show a bad shift better than none at all, why they will not answer it. For Popish libels that are but cast abroad in writing, we require no approbation nor privilege, & dare not the Papists confute a printed libel before it have approbation & privilege?   

The 29. motive.  Protestants themselves take things upon our church's credit. The church's authority. S. Augustine's motive. What 
Br●s●ow.  Sor. pture the Protestants deny. 
Although we did receive such things, as he rehearseth upon their church's credit, it followeth not, that theirs 
Fulke.  is the true church, for we receive nothing from them, without due exammation. The Scriptures we receive not, upon the only credit of the Popish church, but upon the credit of the universal church of Christ. The creeds, articles of doctrine, terms of person trinity, consubstantiality, Sacraments etc. we receive, because they be consonant to the Scriptures, & not because the church of Rome tell●th ●s they be true. As for the authority of the church, which he saith was S. Augustine's motive, to believe the Gospel, was not a single or sole motive, but a commotive or an argument that with other arguments did move him, for the saith not moveret but commoveret: and so it is with us. Provided always that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholic or universal church. What then (saith Bristol) was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine meant? or can you hold laughter when the question is asked? No verily, for when the Protestants church, that it is now so called in this age, like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustine's time, is a member of the Catholic universal church of Christ, and so proved by the holy Scriptures, it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an heretical assembly, departed from the universal church long since Augustine's departure out of this life. But Bristol will prove, that the church at whose commandment Augustine believed the Gospel, was not the protestāns church, because that church commanded him to believe the books of Toby, judith. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees to be canonicallscripture, which the church of Protestants doth deny. But what it Augustine were deceived? to think he heard the voice of the Catholic church when he did not, shall the Protestants church be condemned? S. Jerome who if the church of Rome were the Catholic church, was more like to hear her voice, because he was a Priest of the church of Rome, telleth us a clean contrary tale. For thus he writeth, In praefat. in Proverbia. Sicut ergo judith, & Tobiae, & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit: sic & haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. Therefore as the Church in dead readeth the books of judith and Tobias and of the Macchabees, but yet she receiveth them not among the Canonical scriptures, so she may read these two Books (speaking of the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edifying of the common people, but not for confirming the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrine. Doth the Church of Protestants judge otherwise of these Books, than that Church which thus instructed Jerome? What then? I must say as Bristol doth, S. Jerome and the Catholic Church in his time of our Religion. The Church of Rome now is of an other judgement, than the Church of Rome was then, ergo it is not now that it was then. But whereas Bristol chargeth us to to deny, or at least to leave indifferent the Canticles of Solomon. The Epistle to the hebrews, The Epistles of Saint james, S Peter, S. john, Saint Jude, with the apocalypse, it is a devilish slander, as God knoweth and the wo●ld can bear us witness.   

The 30. Motive is the 36. and 37. demaŭd.  Storehouse of the Scriptures. That Jews Religion changed into ours by Christ. The Church's learning and wisdom. The Church store. S. Irenaeus motive. 
Bristol,  
Bristol demandeth whether the Popish Church receiving the Scriptures of the old and new Testament 
Fulke.  from Christ, hath not kept them faithfully without adding, minishing, or corrupting. I answer no, for the Popish church receiveth none of Christ, but the catholic church of Christ. Again the popish Church hath added whole books to the canon which the church of the jews never received, nor the universal Church of Christ. But those Books (saith Bristol) hath the Protestants church rob us of, which are allowed by approved Counsels. You heard in the last motive Hieromes judgement of those books, whereunto agreeth the council of Laodi●ea cap. 59 Augustine receiveth the books of Macchabees but with condition of sobriety in the reader or hearer. Aug● consec. ●pist. Gaudent. cap. 13. Last of all the popish church, either of fraud or negligence, hath corrupted an exceeding great number of texts of the scripture in her vulgar latin translation, which she receiveth as only authentical. The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied. For whereas the truth is Ipsum contret caput ●●●●, the same seed shall bruise thine head, the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman. Gen 3. Whereas he saith, the Protestants church for this 100 years (as we confess ourselves) occupied no bible, nor had any thing to do with the scriptures, he lieth out of all measure, for the church of Christ hath always had the scriptures, & in every nation where it was, it had them in their mother tongue. How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchment. 3 or 4. hundredth years past in the English tongue, beside other in the Saxon language. The like are to be proved to have been in all places where the Churches were gathered as in France, Italy, Bohemia. etc. Finally, whatsoever he babbleth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures & truth, the like may be said of the greek Church which they condemn as schismatical & heretical, therefore this storehouse is no Motive, to prove the Romish Synagogue to be the church of God. In the 37. demand he asketh whether as well Protestants as other, do not condemn the old writers errors & other heresies of Heretics which made great show of scriptures by the rule of the popish churchs' faith. I answer, the Protestants out of the scriptures, do & can disprove such show of scriptures made by masters of error, & are no more moved by the popish church's authority, than the Apostles were moved by authority of the jewish Synagogue, to reprove all the gross Idolatry and snperstition of the Gentiles. Therefore the popish Church is not Depositorium Dives, that rich storehouse of truth, which was S. Ireneus motive.   

The 31. motive is the 41. demand.  Sending and teaching of all divine truth. Caluins' errors about the trinity. The ignorance of Protestants. Such was jew elr ignorance also, that Christ is a priest according to 
Bristol.  his Godhead. Universities of Heretics, & Catholics. Degrees taken in Universities of Heretics are add nihillated. The ignorance of Protestants, the cause partly why there be so many Atheists in England. The Church's learning, wisdom, and continuance. S. Augustine's Motive. 
This Motive containeth nothing but an immederate arrogant brag of their studying and teaching of 
Fulke.  truth, with the great learning of their Doctors and Universities: and a proud disdamefull upbraiding of our Doctors and universities, of much ignorance and lack of learning. Which comparison if it had been uttered by a man of excellent learning, had been the less odious, but being made by such a blind Baiarde and blockheadded ass, as is this Bristol, it is most intolerable. Caluive (saith he) through ignorance, erred about the Trinity, saying, That God's Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of himself, whereby it followeth inevitably that there be two Gods. For this slanderous and foolish cavil, he citeth Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13. Num. 23. etc. where is no such word nor matter, but a confutation of Heretics, that denied the very essence of the deity of Christ, he citeth also Geneb. de trinit. lib. 1. pa. 43. Where if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used, as I know not whether it be, yet undoubtedly no such thing is meant thereby as Bristol babbleth. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify him that is very God himself, although begotten of God the father, even as Gregory Nazianzene in his Book of the holy Ghost, or De theologia lib. 5. calleth the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord himself, whereof it followeth not that there be two or three Lords, or that the holy ghost proceedeth not from the father and the son. Likewise he calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Light itself and Life: that is very light and very life, and yet he denieth not that he is light, proceeding from light. Wherefore this is an unlearned cavil against Caluine, who more sound, substantially & learnedly hath written of the blessed trinity, than all the Dunces, Aquines, Albert's, & the whole rabblement of Schoolmen, of whom Bristol so vainly doth brag, were ever able to attain unto, who with their sophistry and barbarousness have rather darkened, then set forth the clear light of those most excellent and divine mysteries. The like impudent cavil, he bringeth against M. jewel, whom no man I think without laughter can read, to be charged with ignorance by blundering Bristol, for affirmiug Christ to be a priest according to his deity, whom the Apostle expressly saith, by his eternal spirit to have offered himself. Heb. 9 ve. 11. As for the comparisons between the Universities of Papists and ours, how vain it is, all that be learned & of indifferent judgement can testify. And concerning degrees and civil titles of dignity taken in our universities, being nothing else but testimonies of their learning which receive them, we think them better being confirmed by the Prince's authority, from whom all cidignities even by civil law are derived, than such as are either given or confirmed by the Pope's leaden Bulls. The Atheists & other unreligious minds in England, are not nourished by the ignorance of the Protestants, but detested by their godly and learned judgement. But if where there be most Atheists there is greatest ignorance, then even in Italy & at Rome under the Pope's nose, where be most Atheists of any region almost in the world, is greatest ignorance. Where open blasphemies are as common, yea oftentimes in the Pope's mouth, as the praises of God are among true christians. What traveller in Italy is ignorant of this, whether he be protestant, Papist, or Neuter. Last of all, if the Chuches wisdom, learning, & continuance, was S. Augustine's motive, the folly, barbarousness, & late shining of the popish Church, is a motive to make us think that it is not the church of Christ. For Bristow'S brags are not sufficient to carry away all credit of learning to popish doctors & Universities, whose orders and readings he doth the rather commend to be so excellent, that men which known him of late, with perjury to have taken degrees in Philosophy, should not marvel that he is so suddenly transformed into so great a doctor of divinity, even by once hearing the cause of Divinity, which he supposeth none of our doctors knoweth what it meaneth, such a goodly matter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby a man maketh most account of that he hath learned last. But albeit the question be not of learning but of truth, yet if it would please the Papists to try the learning of our doctors & Universities, under indifferent judges, I doubt not but they should be found equal unto theirs, that I say not in many things they should be found superior.   

The 32. motive is the 22. demand.  Aunuall celebrating of Christ's mysteries. The church's 
Bristol  service is to be embraced. Christ is to be believed for the scriptures of the old testament as they be understood in the church. Ember days or Enper days, whichy our blind Apostles do boldly say to have been the Pope's leman. The Martyrs were of our religion. Saint's days laid down by protestants as our ladies days, S. Laurence day, the assumption of our Lady. The Churches and serui●e of heretics to be refrained in pain of damnation. Against communicating with them. An admonition to priests that say the now service. Heretics are idolaters, and heresies are idols. The year of jubely 1575. Pilgrimage. The sermons of Heretics not to be heard, their books not to be read. Christ to be believed for the virtue of the sign of his Cross, which workesh miracles. Visions for our religion. 
The Annual celebration of Christ's mysteries, by dumb ceremonies and readings not understood of the 
Fulke.  ignorant people, although there were no heresy in the popish service nor no sufficient motives to embrace the popish synagogue as the church of Christ, if the Scriptures and the figures of the law, better applied, than they be in all the lump of the popish solemnities, they would procure small credit to our Saviour Christ: but rather the scorning and derision of Turks, jews, and Pagans. As for the blind commentaries of the jews, out of which he magineth we have all our understanding of the old testament, how little we trust in prophecies of Christ, may be seen in the written commentaries of Caluine, Musculus, & such other. The names of a great number of the solemn feasts, (as Bristol saith) doth argue in deed the Papists either to have invented them, or to have abused them, as Candelmas, Corpus Christi day etc., but that the same were invented by that ancient Church, which celebrated the nativity, resurrection, ascension of Christ & cat is utterly untrue. For your own Durand testifieth, that many of them were of late Pope's institution, which were of another faction, but no: of the church of Christ. How vain a brag it is, that the martyrs were of the Papists religion, because they keep holy their days, I leave to be answered with children's laughture.  
But it is a great offence I ween, that Protestants have put down most of the Saint's days, & namely S. Laurence his day, & all our Lady's days, assumption & all. If a man should ask you wherefore you keep not S. Abraham's day, considering he was the father of the faithful, nor S. Isaiah'S etc.: what could you answer? As for the Lady's days which he complaineth to be put down by us, namely the feasts of her conception, nativity, visitation & assumption, the Church could be without some of them more than 12 hundredth years. For Vrbanus the 6. instituted the feast of the visitation of some called the new found Lady day about the year of Christ 1380. as the very popish service of that day confesseth in the first lesson. The feast of the nativity, is not much elder as both the lessons & Durand do acknowledge, which affirmeth that one Fulbertus a Bishop Cardinal made part of the service. That the feast of the assumption can not be very ancient, it appeareth not only by the barbarous hymns in the popish Church that day, but also by the lessons taken out of Bede, by which it is manifest, that the Church could be without that goodly solemnity, more th●n 700. years after Christ, as a great number of other festivities which borrow their lessons out of Bede, do show sufficiently, that the popish service is nether so ancient nor so universal, as the Papists most impudently do affirm. As for the feast of the conception of the Virgin mary, is not full one hundredth year old, being decreed by Sixtus the 4. in great despite of the Dominike Friars, which did both preach and wright against it.  
Wherefore there is no such intolerable fault assuredly committed, in omitting such festivities, as Bristol crieth out, nether we lack proper days of our Lady, as he saith, whereby he bewrayeth the gross Idolatry of Papists, which are not content to honour our Saviour Christ in his Saints, but the Saints must have proper days dedicated to their honour alone, and utterly separated from the honour of Christ. For it satisfieth not Bristol, that we keep holy the annunciation & purification of Mary, because the one of them saith he, is the conception, the other the presentation of Christ. But Papists keep her nativity, visitation, conception, and assumption, which are the proper days of our Lady. I pass over that he affirmeth the assumption of her body as a certain truth, which the very popish lessons song on that festivity, leave in doubt, and incline rather to the contrary opinion, that the was assumpted only in soul. Likewise that he calleth her the Lady of Saints and Angels, which title the holy Scriptures do not only not give unto her, but plainly deny. For there is but one Lord Eph. 4. both of men and of Angels, which doth not only exclude all other Lords of the masculine gender, but much more all Ladies, and generally surmounteth all principality, power, Lordship, and every name that is named, both in this world and in the world to come. Eph, 1. 2. The Virgin Mary is therefore no Lady of Saints and Angels, but a fellow servant of God with them. Luke 1 48. Apoc. 22. 9 What excellency soever she hath of God's gift, more than any of them. That we keep no solemnity of S. Lawrens, it is not for any contempt of his holiness, nor for any worship of john Baptist and the Apostles, that we solemnize their memories. But therein the Church useth her liberty as in things indifferent. Whereas Bristol doubteth not that if any of us would once be present at the reverent solemn doing of the popish Catholic service, especially at Christmas, Easter or such like time, but it would melt our stony hearts with joy, etc. He bewrayeth many points of folly at once. For first many thousands of us, have been present, and with grief of heart have seen and beheld the doing of those Idolatrous solemnities. Secondly he declareth, how he himself is carried away with piping, singing, sensing, and swinging in copes etc., so that he can not discern the true worship of God, which is in spirit and verity, from the carnal and counterfeit solemnities of Idolatry and superstition. Last of all, how childishly doth he refer all Catholic solemnity to the vain pomp used only in great and Cathedral Churches, when a thousand pavishes beside in the poor country towns, have all their trash so beggarly and rudely set forth, that the Papists themselves laugh them to scorn. The rest of this motive is spent in dissuading Papists from learning our service, or sermons, or reading of our books, by which it is plain, that he so much mistrusteth his cause, that he dare not once permit his disciples to inquire of it, or to hear any thing that may be said to the contrary. As for popish priests that say the new (as he termeth it) service, I would they would follow his council to say it no more. That it is not lawful for Christians to communicate with heretics, or Idolaters, it is a plain case: But it shall never be proved that they be heretics, which teach nothing but the doctrine of holy Scripture, or that they are Idolaters, which are ready to give their lives rather than to worship Idols. But the year of jubely is a great motive for great fools to embrace popery, which jubely Pope Boniface the 8. did first institute in the veare of our Lord 1300 by apish or rather devilish imitation of the fathers of the old testament for filthy lukers sake, beside the horrible blashemye of full remission of sins granted by the Pope in that year, which is denied to be given by the death of Christ. As for the jubely, which Bristol speaketh of anno 1575. is of a later institution ordained to be kept every 25. year, because it was to long for the Pope to tarry until the hundredth and 50. year, as Boniface appointed. This is the antiquity of that jubely pardon, and pilgrimage.  
The miracle which S. Augustine reporteth of Innocentia that was warned in her dream, to desire the first woman which she did meet, returning from baptism at Easter, to sign her breast with the sign of the cross, on which was a canker, for cure of which she had long prayed unto God: declareth in deed the virtue of Christ, which can use all means to work health where it pleaseth him, but nothing at all maketh for popery. For if it hath pleased God at any ●yme to work wonders by the sign of the cross, it followeth not thereof either that the sign of the cross hath any virtue in it, more than that hem of Christ's garment had, by which a woman also was healed, or else that an ordinary ceremony is to be made of signing with the cross, more than of touching the hem of any garment.  
In the 22. demand he asketh whether in the most ancient service of the primitive Church, there was not always prayer for the dead and to saints, the ceremonies used by Papists in baptism etc. I answer, no. Cyprian whom he quoteth Ep. 66. speaketh not of prayer for the dead in any place, but of oblation for the falling a sleep that is thanks giving for the departure of the dead, and naming them in the prayers of the Church which died in the faith of Christ, and in obedience of the Church.  
In the time of Eusebius that error of praying for the dead was in deed received in many places of the Church, which began first among the Montanists. The ceremonies of exuf●lation and exorcism were not idly used in the primitive Church, as they are of the Papists, but when the persons to be baptized were sensibly possessed with devils as appeareth in Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 7. ad Magnum.  
Likewise where he demand th' whether we read at any time when Mass did first come into the Churches. I answer if by Mass he meaneth that popish form of sacrificing, which they use and call Mass, we read of every part of it when and by what Pope it came in. By Mass he meaneth the doctrine of the carnal presence, transubstantiation, adoration of the sacrament and making it a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, I answer that we read all these heresies to have crept into the Church of Rome, since the first six hundredth years. And as for the substance of the canon, being contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles, is easy to be proved that it came not from the Apostles, beside that some of them ascribe it to Gregory, and Gregory himself to Scholasticus, so that being of some antiquity it containeth in it, matter repugnant even unto the popish heresies. For first it calleth the consecrated bread and wine the sacrifices, and offereth them for the whole Church. Secondly after consecration it calleth the Sacrament Panem sanctum vit●e aeternae, & calicem salutis aeternae, holy bread of eternal life, and cup of eternal health, of the gifts of God, and prayeth God to accept it as the sacrifice of Abel.  
Thirdly the priest prayeth that God will command ●●●● same to be carried by an Angellinto his high alter etc.  
Fourthly he prayeth for all them that have received the same sacrament with him which can not stand with a private Mass.  
Finally, that it came not evidently of the Apostles, as Bristol impudently affirmeth, it may be evidently seen by this, that diverse Saints are named in it, which lived more than two hundredth years after the Apostles as Cosmus Damiaius etc. And that we are able to find more fault with it then with Gloria Patri, Te Deum etc. it is plentifully declared by many volumes, and namely by Bishop of Sarum in his sermon and defence of the same against Harding.   

The 33. motive is the 21. demand.  Ecclesiastical monuments and livings. Churches the work of the Catholics. Universities of heretics and Catholics. Protestants be usurpers of other men's livings. 
Although a great number of churches, that are now 
Bristol.  standing were builded by Papists, and for Popery, yet not all. For the chiefest and most ancient Cathedral churches, were neither builded by Papists, nor for Popery, but by Christian Princes and for the use of Christian 
Fulke.  religion. Of such churches writeth Euseb. in vita Const. lib. 30. & Hist. Eccl. lib. 10. cap. 4. where was but one table or altar, which was removable & made of boards placed in the midst of the Church. contrary to the popish fashion which hath many Altars, and all against walls or pillars, and the chiefest against the farthest wall, most commonly. It is a fond reason of Bristol that they were built for Popery, because they are built in length to the East, or in form of a Crosse. For many are built round, and those with cross Isles, are most unmeet for mass at the high Altar, which they that sit in the cross Yles cannot see. Likewise Bede, whom Bristol in the demand without shame doth quote for the contrary, testifieth that the churches of the Romans. lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaking of Niva, one that was brought up at Rome, which at a place called Candida casa now Whiterne: Made a Church of stone of an other fashion, than the Britan's were wont to build. These are the words of Bede of Stapletons' translation. And concerning the founding of Ecclesiastical livings and Universities, we know that the first dotation of Churches, was by Christian Princes, what if superstition hath added any thing to them? Nether the building of Churches, not the founding of livings and Universities, doth prove the builders or founders to be of good religion, not yet condemn the users of such Churches, livings and Universities, of usurping or sacrilege. The idolatrous Church of Pantheon at Rome, was turned into Maria rotunda. Gregory counseled Augustine to convert the Idolatrous Churches of the Saxons, to the use of Christian religion. Beda lib. 1. cap. 30. The University of Athens, founded by heathen Philosophers, was after frequented by Christian scholars as testifieth Gregory Nazianzene in Monod. And if we believe our English stories, the livings of the Idolatrous Flamines & Arch Flamines was converted to the mayntenancs of the Bishops and ArchBishops.   

The 34. motive is the 23. demand.  Heretics are apes of the Catholics. The Church's learning 
Bristol.  and wisdom. The Communion book an apish imitation of our Mass book. 
The manner of Apes is to counterfeit and follow visible 
Fulke.  actions, without any meaning or profit. Such imitation have we none, but the apish Church of Rome, is full of such following of the gestures of Christ, in their mass and other ceremonies. Yea they counterfeit the voice of Pilate & judas in reading the gospel on Palm Sunday. They play the apes of the Primitive Church, in conjuring the devil in baptism. Yea they be the apes of Aaron & the levitical Priests, in their robes, sensing, & sacrificing. The very Pagans they follow in ceremonies & festivities, as their own Durand confesseth. In whose Rationale divinorum, you may see the learning & wisdom of the popish Church, for all their mischievous mysteries.  
As for us, we imitate nothing that they do, to get commendation by similitude of their doings, but rather we abhor whatsoever hath but a show of popery, if we use any thing rightly, which is abused of them, we are not therefore apes of them, but they apes of the ancient fathers, whose doctrine we do truly follow, as they vainly imitate and in imitation falsely pervert their examples. That the communion book is an apish imitation of the mass book, is a most shameless lie. For what similitude hath our ministration of the communion, with their mass, any more, than our doctrine with theirs? If any thing in ceremonies or discipline have been tolerated not altogether purged from all similitude of popish actions, by yielding unto the infirmity of the weaker sort: yet is the Church of God perfect in herself, and needeth not to borrow of any sect any thing, for her perfect furniture in doctrine, ceremonies, or discipline, but hath absolute rules to direct her in any of these expressed in the holy Scriptures.  
For the division of parishes, the holding of councils, excommunication, suspension, public solemnizing of marriage with the laws of the same, punishing of heretics by, death, etc. are all manifestly proved out of the Scriptures. Probat of testaments and such like matters pertain to the civil law. And whereas Bristol saith, we could not tell that we should use baptizing of men, more than washing of feet, or this less than that, or one to be a sacrament and not the other, except we had been taught by the popish Church, it is a great falsehood. For although we might allege the judgement of the most ancient Church of Christ, which did not accept that action of Christ as a sacraments yet the words of our Saviour Christ are manifest, which doth not institute a sacrament or visible sign of the invisible grace of God given unto us, but only giveth us an example thereby of service able humility one to an other. joan. 13. 12. Wherefore no more in this then in any other matter do we take any light, out of the books and doings of those owls, that fly in the darkness of men's traditions, but only out of the law of God which is a light unto our steps, and a lantern unto our feet, that we need not like apes counterfeit external toys as they do, but being followers of God as well-beloved children, we may walk in love as Christ hath loved us, and so fa●re to follow the steps of other men, as we see plainly that they have followed Christ.   

The 35. motive is the 25. demand.  States of perfection. Monks & Monasteries. Parliament 
Bristol.  religion. 
We confess that we have no states of perfection in 
Fulke.  this life among us, which to affirm in any mortal man is blasphemy against the blood of Christ. As for Monks and Friars names, Eremites, etc.: none were farther from a Christian or honest life than they, as the world knoweth sufficiently. And therefore by law they and their Monasteries were justly subverted. As for the solitary men of the ancient times, dwelling by themselves, or in the desert places called M●nach●, Anchoritae or Eremit●e, these popish orders, of whose subversion Bristol complaineth, were no more like unto them, than Apes and Monkeys are to men and women.  
The community of goods that was in the Church of the Apostles. Act. 4. was none other, than such as is and aught to be among all true Christians. which was not as Bristol ignorantly and impudently affirmeth, to live without propriety of goods, having all things in an anabaptistical community, but that they accounted nothing of that they possessed to be their own, when the necessity of their brethren required the use thereof. Act. 4. 32. & 34. And Act. 5. 4. Peter affirmeth that both the land and the price thereof was in the propriety of Ananias, so that he might have retained either his land or the whole price thereof, but that he was an hypocrite and would bear the Church in hand, that he had brought the whole price, when he withdrew a part thereof. As for Virgins although there be fewer amongst us, that boast of that profession, yet are there more both men and women which freely keep their purpose of virginity, than were among those popish vowed cloystralls.   

The 36. motive is the 46. demand.  The state of our predecessors. Prayer for the dead, the ground of building Christian monuments. Universities of heretikès 
Bristol.  and Catholics, Protestants be ashamed of their fathers. 
The demand serveth to be contrary to the motive, 
Fulke.  for in the motive he confesseth, that we will not condemn our ancestors that have died these many hundred years in popish ignorance, nor the ancient doctors which have held some errors which the Papists do hold, but in the demand he asketh, if all these are damned in hell, if not, then theirs is the true Church, & those errors are truth. I answer we deal not with condemnation of men, for lack of two causes, which make a judge, the one austerity, the other is knowledge. Concerning the first, it pertaineth only to Christ, to be the judge of the quick and the dead, whose office we dare not usurp, otherwise than he hath commanded us, to pronounce sentence out of his word: concerning the latter, we take not upon us to know either the faith or repentance of them that died before our time, and therefore we commit their judgement to God. But generally we are taught by the Scriptures, that such as hold the only foundation which is jesus Christ, in a true faith, shall be saved although they build upon this foundation chaff, straw, wood, etc. 1. Cor. 3. And therefore we doubt not but S. Augustine, Chrysostom, Hierom, Gregory, Bernard, & many thousands, even in the time of great blindness, holding the same only foundation, may be saved, notwithstanding the chaff and stubble of a few errors which the former sort did hold, or a number of errors and superstitions wherewith the later sort were defiled. As for Frances and Dominike such late leaders of the locusts, we rather think they are returned into the bottomless pit from whence they came, then that they be Saints in heaven. But if we excuse the rest by ignorance, Bristol asketh why we condemn not Augustine, which was not ignorant of our doctrine, because he condemned it for most wicked heresy in Aerius, jovinian and Vigilantius, who although they be our fathers, he saith we are ashamed to bless their memory. First concerning jovinian, although he held an heresy, in not preferring virginity before marriage in some respect, yet have we nothing to do with him, for we hold not that opinion, which if we did yet were it no damnable heresy. Touching AErius he is condemned of Augustine for an Arrian, his opinion of prayer for the dead although it were not liked of Augustine, yet doth he in no place condemn it for most wicked heresy, as Bristol calleth it, but that he did allow prayer for the dead, it was an error of ignorance, even in S. Augustine, as that he thought the communion necessary for infants. Cont. duas ep. Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 4. As for Vigilantius I find him not reckoned either by Epiphanius or Augustine for an heretic, or for one that erred in doctrine, although Hierom did write so bitterly against him, who likewise did write against Augustine and Ruffinus, yet are nether of both accounted for heretics. And AErius as he held some truth with us against prayer for the dead, so held he also much popish superstition and error, for like the order of Carthusians, they of his sect admitted none to their fellowship, but such as professed continence, & so renounced the world, that they possessed nothing in proper. As testifieth Epiphanius and Augustine. And Philaster affirmeth, that they abstained also from eating of flesh. So that all things considered, Aerius maintained the doctrine of the Papists, as much as of the Protestants. That our preachers in pulpits, praise God for the founders of colleges and schools, of learning, by name, what maketh this for allowance of their religion. God is to be praised for such benefits as he hath bestowed upon his church or any members thereof, even by Turks and Heathen men. Wherefore this is a very slow motive unto Popery. For whether the founders were good or evil men, and what intent soever they had, their benefits are now used to the glory of God, & therefore God for them and their benefits is greatly to be praised.   

The 37. motive hath never a demand that I can aptly refer unto it.  The only known & undoubted mother of Christ's children 
Bristol.  for a thousand years together. The church is everlasting and visible. 
The Popish church hath not only been the only known 
Fulke.  church and undoubted mother of Christ's children for these thousand years. First because it is not of so many years continuance, the mystery of iniquity having not been in highest degree of wickedness before the council of Constance, where notwithstanding the institution of Christ and the practice of the primitive church, the communion of the lords blood was taken from the people. Secondly the Popish church was never acknowledged by all the true children of Christ's church, for their mother, which was a steppemother and a persecuter of them. Thirdly the Popish church was never the only reputed church or mother of Christ's children, of all them that profess Christianity for the churches of the East, as great and as large as she was in the West, would never so account the Popish steppedame of Rome, but did separate themselves from her communion. Fourthly the Catholic church of Christ's members dispersed over all the world, under the tyranny both of the Turk & the Pope, have in all times protested, that the Romish Apostolical synagogue, is the whore of Babylon and see of Antichrist.  
The places of Mich. 4. and Esa 61. which he citeth to prove that the church must be always visible, you shall find answered with many other in mine overthrow of Stapletons' fortress lib. 1. cap. 13. And whereas Bristol confesseth, that a mist may hide an hill that is never so high, from some wicked sighted men that are without it, but never from them that are within it, no merua●le if the spiritual church of Christ, being lifted up above the top of all hills, not in worldly glory, but even unto heavenly dignity, hath long remained hid from them, that have no spiritual eyes at all. But Bristol thinketh it strange, that a mist should continue a thousand years together. Then I ask him what hath hindered the greatest part of all the world, seduced by Mahometistrie and Gentility that for these thousand years they have not seen the height of the Popish church. If he say not a mist about their church but a blindness in the others eyes to be the cause, the same I answer for the Catholic dispersed church of Christ, which the Papists pretend that this thousand years they could not see. Although as I have often said, Papistry is not half so old in the greatest heresies and absurdities, which now she maintaineth.   

The 38. motive is the 24. demand also the 48. and the 17.  Celebration & operation of Christ's death. The sacrifice of Bristol. the mass. Priesthood. Where Christ worketh. Only faith. exorcizing of devils. 
In the Popish churches no celebration, but a derogation of the merit of Christ's death, by the blasphemous 
Fulke.  sacrifice of the mass. But Bristol in the 24. demand, asketh us whether we be content to try religion by the Priesthood that hath been from; the beginning of Christ's church. I answer that we must first consent of the name of Priest and Priesthood, whereof also in the same demand he cavilleth, that we have changed the name & therefore have changed the order. The name I say of Priesthood & Priest must be considered, either according to the Etymology & derivation, or else according to the present use thereof. And according to the derivation, we confess that this word Priest, coming of the greek word Presbyteros signifieth the same o●der, which is instituted by God, like as the word Bishop c●mming of Episcopus, for which if any man use the name of Elder & superintendant, he varieth nothing in the world, from the signification of Presbyter and Episcopus, and much less setteth up a new order as Bristol most vainly doth cavil. For in that sense, we abhor not the name of Priest & Bishop. But when according to the present use, this word Priest is taken for him which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin Sacerdos that is one appointed to offer a special sacrifice for which our English tongue hath none other word but Priest as Bristol doth well confess: In this sense we deny that we have any special Priesthood or Priests among us but the only Priesthood and high Priest our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, and the general Priesthood that is common to all the saints of God. Apoc. 16. But in the former sense, we have the same office of Bishop, Elder or Priest which being ordained by the holy Ghost, hath continued in the church until this time. But this will Bristol disprove, by two reasons. First that ancient Bishops and Priests were made by Bishoppès and Priests, and not by Kings and Queens: secondly they were made to offer sacrifice, and even for the dead. Concerning the first it is true that the ancient Priests were so ordained, but it is a most impudent slander, that we are made Bishops or Priests by Kings or Queens. For the world knoweth we are ordained by the Bishops and Elders of the church and not by the Prince. But that the ancient Bishops and Elders of the church since Christ, were ordained to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead, it is utterly false. For albeit the ancient writers unproperly used the names of Priest and sacrifice, yet did they never mean to set up a new Priesthood or sacrifice, to overthrow the only true priesthood and sacrifice of Christ's death as in many places of their writings most manifestly doth appear, but only they did continue a memory of the sacrifice of Christ's death in the celebration of the lords supper Chris. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving August. De civit. Dei. lib. 10. cap 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi unum corpus sumus in Christo: quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam off●rt ipsa offeratur. This (saith Augustine speaking of the sacrifice of thanksgiving) is the sacrifice of Christians, we being many are one body in Christ, which thing also the church frequenteth in the Sacrament of the altar well known to the faithful, where it is showed unto her, that in the same oblation which she offereth, she herself is offered. Likewise cap. 20. speaking of the sacrifice of Christ's death he saith. Per hoc & Sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium, cum ipsius corporis ipse sit caput, & ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus, tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri. By this also he is a Priest, he himself offering and he himself being the oblation. Of which thing he would have the daily sacrifice of the church to be a Sacrament, seeing that of her being his body he is the head, and of him being her head she is the body, as well she by him, as he by her, being accustomed to be offered. So that the error of praying for the dead which prevailed within three hundredth years after Christ, was at the first, without blasphemy of sacrificing the body of Christ for the quick and the dead. In this four and twenty demand Bristol asketh further whether in the ancient Church there were not Subdeacons, Acolytes, Exorcists, door keepers etc. I answer there were such offices, appointed for aid of diverse parts of the ministery, whereof the Papists retain only the names, without any exercise of the offices. And the offices were such for the most part, as were proper for the time of persecution, and as they had no instruction of the word of God but were ordained by the Church, so by the Church they are thought unnecessary. In the forty eight demand which is a part of this motive, he asketh whether their Church only hath not grace in her Sacraments, merit in her workers, force in her word, power in her teaching, her children the saddest sort of people, men of best order in families, towns, and cities, etc. I answer, the Popish Church hath no Sacraments but such as she falsely usurpeth, namely the Sacrament of baptism, which as Augustine saith against the Donatists, may be given out of the true Church, but hath no virtue or grace but in the true Church. As for merit of works is blasphemous against the mercy of God. unde mihi tantum meriti est (saith Ambrose Ad virgin. exhort.) cui indulgentia pro coronaest. Whence should I have so great merit seeing mercy is my crown. And touching force of her word and power of her teaching, if there were not greater terror of her tyranny and allurement in her worldly glory she should have fewer partakers. For except the efficacy of error which God hath sent for the punishment of the unbelieving world, she hath no power of the word of God, nor of his holy spirit, to convert the hearts of men to Christ, but external enticements like Mermaids songs, to seduce men to their destruction. And as for her Children the Papists, although some be more modest than the rest, as there be even among the Turks and Heathen, none ate more light, vain, disordered, proud, proud, deceitful, covetous, worldly, luxurious, malicious, and cruel, not only at Rome, and abroad, where they be in their ruff, but even here in England, where they have not all their will. I except a few, which being deceived, not of malice but of ignorance, God in time may bring to the knowledge of the truth, if they be not dissemblers and seek by all means to absent themselves from it.  
Furthermore how e maliciously he slandereth the Church of God let God himself revenge, where he saith, we have no preaching of Penance, no grace in sacraments, nothing but sin in good works, although they be done in Christ. No power to bring under Devils, no blessing, no comfort, yea that all followers be they never so wicked and flagitious, have they only faith and no doubt, they shall be saved. And yet the forgetful Liar confesseth afterward, that we affirm that true faith cannot be without true and perfect doctrine, nor without good works.  
But what Faith do you preach or teach (saith Bristol) Not that Christian faith which is contained in the Articles of our Creed, but a special Faith, or an vudoubted persuasion that he is predestinate. How soever therefore it be that Bristol is disposed for to lie and rail, they that either hear our Sermons or read our Books of justification by Faith only, do know that we teach none other Faith by which a man may be justified, but even that Faith, which is only contained in the Articles of our Creed. The very first word whereof I believe, teacheth not the implicit faith of the papists, but a special and singular faith and trust that every Christian man must have in God the father and in jesus Christ, which was conceived, borne, dead, risen again, etc. for us, and in the holy Ghost, by whom the virtue of Christ's conception, nativirie, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension, is communicated to us, being members of the Catholic church, in which we receive forgiveness of sins, and thereby being made righteous, we receive the reward of righteousness, which is the resurrection unto glory, and the life everlasting, which was prepared for us before the world was made, which faith no blasphemous heretics can have, that deny any of these Articles, what persuasion soever they have, which faith the Papists have not, which never put their trustin God by jesus Christ, but in their own works etc., nor yet have any certainty of their salvation, whereas all they that truly put their trust in God, shall not be confounded. From which faith the Papists are so far, that they think it not convenient that the people should know and rehearse the articles of the Creed in the mother tongue, although now of late, they have set forth English catechisms, as Apes of the true Church, not that their Disciples might have more knowledge, seeing they hold that ignorance is the mother of Devotion, but that they see they cannot though for shame they would conceal this knowledge from them. And when they cannot hinder them of the knowledge of the Articles of faith, how I pray you do they teach them to believe them? Even with an historical faith, which is none others then such as the devil believeth, namely that there is one God, that jesus Christ was borne, crucified, ascended into Heaven etc.  
In the 17. Demand he asketh us whether we read not that the Christians of the Primitive church, had an ordinary power and office to cast out devils, which we acknowledge that we have not, but the Papists have. To this I answer, that in the Primitive church were diverse gifts of healing, casting out of Devils & working of miracles, which were temporal, and are long since ceased to be ordinary, and therefore we do in deed confess that we have no such ordinary power. Neither do we believe that the papists have any such, what juggling or counterfeiting of miracles soever is among them, their forgery hath to often been tried to their shame.  
To conclude, our Church hath Christ and his spirit, and therefore all graces & blessings whatsoever Christ hath promised to be perpetual in the same, to the salvation of his elect and the glory of his name.   

The 39 motive is in part contained in the 48. demand.  Teaching the narrow way, and living after it. Who be Bristol. now followers of Protestants. Why there be so many ●itheisti in England. England beware of destruction. 
The doctrine of Purgatory and satisfaction of God's 
Fulke.  wrath by works of our own or of other men's. The doctrine of pardons, the doctrine of Grace given by sacraments, Exopere operato. The sacrifice of the mass etc. are doctrines that teach the broad way leading unto destruction, while they bring men into security and confidence in vain helps. And that is the cause that Papists and Popes themselves of all other have been and are the most wicked. The number of Atheists that are in England are not made, but discerned by the preaching of the Gospel. And yet neither are there so many nor so impudent professors of Atheism in England, as there be in Italy and even in Rome itself. Where the Pope hath been condemned in general council for an Atheist, as john the 23. in the council of Consta●s. Where Pope Leo counteth the Gospel for a fable of Christ. Pope july will eat hogs flesh in despite of God.  
The sins I confess of England are great, and such as call to God for vengeance without hearty repentance, and the greatest sin is ingratitude in the multitude, refusing sincerely to embrace the Gospel, and in other hypocrisy which abusing the name of the Gospel, have an outward show of godliness, but deny the power thereof. Yet is there both in the state (which Bristol most traitorously doth slander) and in the Church of England, yea in the Realm of England, more sincerity, fidelity, honesty, Charity, humility, Chastity, and godlinesses, and less Athesme, infidelity, cruelty, pride, riot, whoredom, swearing and forswearing, Covetousness, sacrilege, and all manner of wickedness, more I say of virtue and less of vice in England at this time, then is or hath been at any time with in those five hundred years in Rome or Italy. So that if a Book were made as Bristol seemeth to threaten of the behaviour of the worst and most counterfeit Protestants in England, yet shall it never be found so vile and abominable as are the lives of the most of the Popes themselves, set forth not by Protestants in our days, but by all popish stories before we were borne.   

The 40. motive hath no special demand answering to it. 
Bristol.   Obedient subjects. In what Church is Christianity of all laws which was Saint Augustine's Motive. Obedience of the Catholics to their superiors both ecclesiastieall and temporal Protestants be malignours of higher powers. 
Fulke.  
If this Motive had been set forth before the Rebellion in the North, or if so many traitorous practices from Rome had not been openly discovered peradventure Bristol might have moved some mountains by it.  
But now Quis tulerit Gracchum de seditioue loquent●m? Who can abide the Papists to brag of Obedience? Yet both the civil Law and the common Law of England are made to serve popish Religion, if we will believe Bristol. God be thanked they both serve the Church of God not only in England, but in all other Realms and states that have embraced the Gospel, the civil and municipal Laws, without any alteration of the state, save for the advancement of God's glory.  
But Protestants he saith, be Maligners of the higher powers, such as Saint Jude calleth contemners of Lordship, and blasphemers of Majesty. Or else the Papists be such in that blasphemous Bull, for which Felton was hanged, in which are so vile opprobrious and contumelious slanders of our Prince, that for her honour and my duties sake, I will not vouchsafe to name them.  
He objecteth unto us Knox's Book against the regiment of women, which was but his private opinion and condemned of all our Church, and of the Church of Geneva also. He objecteth the civil wars in France, in which the Kings themselves have always in public instruments discharged the Protestants of all disloyalty, and acknowledged that whatsoever they did in taking Arms, they did it in the service of them and of their Realm. As for the murdering of great Personages, Wasting of Cities and Countries etc. the world knoweth whether party is chargeable with the crime. And to seek no farther proves of the traitorous and disobedient hearts of all wicked and pernicious Papistes●, Bristol himself confesseth in this motive, that they be duly discharged from subjection and the Prince from dominion by the sovereign authority of the common Paster of Religion.  
But where in the devils name, hath your sovereign Pastor and Prelate of Rome, such authority? From Peter? Did Peter discharge the subjects of Nero from subjection, or Nero from his government, although he were a most wicked persecutor of the Church, or rather doth he not command all persons to obey him. 1. Pet, 2. 14. & 17. O traitorous hypocrites, which have made all whole, when you pray for the Prince's conversion, so deposed by your Pope. The Lord our God defend our sovereign, as well from your prayers as from your practices. Another argument of your obedience, you show, where you say, that of Catholics, thoroughly discharged of their fealtic, yet for common humanity, for their accustomed use, for their continual & (as it were) natural institution, the prince is better obeyed and screwed, then of the Protestants, which in heart are in a manner all Puritants. Note here that Papists profess themselves to be subjects of courtesy, not of duty, of custom, not of conscience, of natural institution, not of the law of God. Our Lord and saviour send her majesty few such subjects and servants.   

The 41. motive is the 19 demand.  The Church to which Princes do homage. 
Bristol.  
The true Catholic church of Christ, is that church of which it was prophesied, that Kings and Queens 
Fulke.  should be the nurse thereof, and as obedient children do homage thereto, as to the mother of all the faithful. To this church the old and first Christianed Emperors, Constantius, jovianus, Theodosius, Valentinianus etc. submitted themselves as obedient children. To this church at this day many Kings and Queens do homage, and are nurses thereof, as the Princes of England, Scotland, Denmark, Suevon, Saxony. But Bristol objecteth against us, that our Princes are not taught obedience to the Church, but truly seduced by the title of head and supreme governors of the Church. To this I answer that this title of headshippe and governance of particular Churches, is none other, but such as they may and aught to hold, with their obedience unto the universal Church. Yea their government is such, as therein they serve God and the Church, in compelling by law and authority, all persons to do their duties as well in religion, as in civil affairs: Not an antichristian tyranny, such as the Pope usurpeth to be Lords over our faith, and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure, but to provide that all things may be done according to the word of God.  
But Bristol replieth that it was not the Popish church unto whom Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperors yielded up the imperial City of Rome, with all the country of Italy. What an impudent lie this is, may easily be known of all them, which have read the histories which testify that the Emperors of Constantinople received possession in Rome and Italy until the time of Charles the great, which was made Emperor by the Pope. In the demand Bristol asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs, Constantinus, Theodosius, were not in all points of the popish Religion? I answer that although they were infected with a few errors, as prayer for the dead etc., yet in the substance of Christian Religion, they believed the same that we believe of justification by faith, only of the virtue of Christ's sacrifice once offered for all, of the authority of the holy Scriptures, and were enemies to the Papists in their chief Principle, of the Pope's supremacy, the carnal presence, transubstantiation, private Mass, Communion in one kind, Images, Prayers in unknown language, and many other.  
As for the licence that Bristol would have us procure for them, to appear with us before the Queen's highness, to dispute whether the first Christian Emperors were not altogether Papists? is nothing else but a popish brag, which if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cavillations, as they did in the Conference offered unto them at Westminster, in the first year of her majesties reign: where after they had heard our side once read their Book, they were so discouraged, that they durst abide no more trial, but shamefully and obstiantely clean gave over the conference.   

The 42. motive is part of the 47. demand.  The Parliament Church and Religion. Saint Peter excluded 
Bristol,  out of England by Parliament. Yea Christ, Peter and Paul and other Apostles excluded out of England by Parliament. The Apostles were of our Religion. How Saint Augustine should be used in England by the Parliament law if he were there living. Of what Religion and authority the Fathers are. Succession. Protestants contrary to them salves. 
We must consider (saith Bristol) what Church 
Fulke.  that is, where Laws be made to charge Peter if he were living, to give up his commission received of Christ, and to take another of the King or Queen, and to charge him and his fellow Apostles to leave the true service which they had received, and to minister after an other sort, as the Parliament law prescribeth.  
To this I answer, we will be tried by the writings of Peter and his fellow Apostles, that the Parliament law for Religion and service of God, concerning the substance thereof urgeth not Peter to change his commission, nor to use any other service than they themselves have taught us to use. If Augustine were alive and in England, he was a man of such modesty and love of the truth, that seeing the same plainly revealed out of the holy Scriptures, he would retract his error of Prayer for the dead, as when he lived he retracted and set forth many things, wherein he found that he had erred. As for the fine of an hundred Marks, he would not have left nor been deprived of his bishopric and imprisoned for saying of the popish Mass, for he never said any in his life, but was an utter enemy to the chief points thereof, allowing nothing thereof but prayer for the dead at the celebration of the Lords supper.  
And for as our Saviour jesus Christ, the King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords, and the only ruler of Heaven and earth, do you think that he will not complain that he only by Parliament law is acknowledged to be the head of his universal Church, and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit, that he need no viear general of a mortal man, which can occupy but one place, although he were never so diligent and painful to discharge his duty in that behalf.  
For his divine and spiritual authority, is not excluded under the name of foreign power, as Bristol not more slanderously then ridiculously affirmeth. Yet he pleaseth himself so much in so great folly and madness, that he saith, Christ could not claim to be head of his Church, except he should claim to be the natural King of England, and to have said unto pilate, My kingdom is of this world and thy master Caesar doth me wrong. As though the King of England, by title of his royal power, claiming to be the chief Servant or deputy of Christ, in governing his Church according to his word, did exclude the sovereignty of Christ which he hath over his Church and elect, wheresoever they are upon the face of the earth.  
But the Protestants (saith Bristol) are contrary to themselves while they say that our Prince is King of France aswell as of England and Ireland & yet say not that he is he●de of the Church of France, but only of the Church of England and Ireland. And is Bristol such a profound Logician that he cannot distinguish a King in right only, from a King in actual government. If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernment of France, as he hath title of right to have it, he shall be governor of the Church of France, as well as of the Church of England and Ireland. That he saith we have been from hence at the Apostles going so long a journey without any footing, in the way, it is a foolish cavil for we have often showed succession of doctune, even from the Apostles from whom it is received.   

The 43. Motive is part of the 47. demand.  Communion of saints. Christendom shut out of England by Parliament. Counsels. Saint Paul might not write 
Pristow.  ad Anglos for the Pa●l●ament. 
The Church of England is not so straythened or pinched within the limits of one Kingdombut that 
Fulke.  she believeth and enjoyeth the communion of all the Saints of God, as a member of the universal church of Christ. And therefore I marvel what colour Bristol hath for those slanders: that one Christian man in England in spiritual affairs is a stranger to another, that general Counsels have no authority in it, that Saint Paul or all the Apostles if they were living might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romans, Galathians, Corinthians etc. that Christ without the consent of the King and the Parliament might not dispose his own Church. These vain and impossible suppositions, could not come but from a gross and foolish invention of one that lacketh arguments to prove his cause. The laws are made according to that which is, namely the truth, set forth in the holy Scriptures, not according to that which every fool will fond suppose or imagine.   

The 44. Motive is the 49. demand.  The Church that all Chrsstes enemies fight against. England 
Bristol  joineth with Christ's enemies against Christendom. What Religion the jowes' impunge as the Religion of Christ. Christ is to be believed for converting of Emperors and powers from their Idols to serve his servants. The Church is everlasting and visible. Saint Augustine's motive. Emperors turned from their Idols and praying at Peter'S sepulchre, and the Christianity of human laws. Saint Augustine of our Religion, Protestants be of many old heresies. 
The popish Church was not persecuted by the heathen Emperors, but the Catholic church of Christ, 
Fulke.  The popish Church is not of so great antiquity, that she had then any show in the world, although the mystery of iniquity did then work and even in the Apostles time. The Heathens, Turks and jews, do no more hate the popish church; then they do the church of God which is in England. The wars against the Turk be at this day maintained by the states of Germany, which are of our religion aswell as by the Papists, That there is no public aid sent against the Turk out of England, it is not in any allowance of Turkish religion but because the state seethe it not necessary neither was there any public aid sent an hundredth years be o'er the revolt from Papistry. And yet even in the Queen's majesties reign, there hath gone aid out of England against Soliman which died at the siege of Segesto, where divers noble Gentlemen of England going on their own charges as Bizia testifieth won more true glory than they that 2. or 3. hundred years before upon a superstitious vow were signed with the cross to fight against the Saracens, for the possession of the earthly jerusalem. How often shall I answer, that the first christian Emperors were not converted from Idolatry to Christianity by the popish Church, but the later Christian Emperors, by her have been perverted from the true worship of God, unto Idolatry. That the emperors being converted from Idolatry, did pray at Peter the fisherman's sepulchre (as Augustine saith) it showeth the virtue of the Gospel of Christ that had made so great alteration in them, but nothing at all proveth the authority or any error of the popish Church, for Augustine saith not that they prayed unto Peter, but at the sepulchre of Peter, meaning in the Church that was builded upon the place, that was supposed to be the burial of Peter. The laws that those Emperors made against Idolaters, may well serve against the Papists, which are as gross in all kinds of Idolatry as the Gentills for the most part were. Finally it was not the popish Church, but the Church of Christ, that suppressed the heresies of the Arrians, Sabellians, Nestorians etc. But jovinian did let out of hell Priests and Nuns marriage, which gate not the Church of Protestants, but our Church (saith Bristol) hath stopped. The Church that strived against jovinian, was nether for marriage of Priests, of whom many thousands were married in that time, yea and a thousand years after, nor yet for marriage of such as had vowed virginity, and could not contain, when both Epiphanius the hatchet of heresies, and Jerome that greatest adversary of jovinian, agree that they ought to mary. Epiph. count Apostolicoshaer. 61. Hierom ad Demetriadem.  
Nether were Epiphanius, Philaster, and Augustine, which disallow the opinion of Aerius, concerning prayers for the dead, members of the popish church, for this one error which they held, seeing they hold the principal substance of religion against the Papists, and agreeable to the word of God. That Bristol saith in the demand, We count Turks, jews, and very Atheists for our friends and all that be not Papists, it is a most detestable slander. The anabaptists burned in Smithfield were no Papists, the blasphemer of Christ lately burned at Norwiche was no Papist, whose sharp execution showeth, that heretics, blasphemers, and Atheists, when they are discovered, find no friendship at the hands of Christ's Church, but such as they deserve. Finally the Eastern Church, which of long time hath been separated from the Romish communion, hath as great enemies of the Turks, heathen and jews, as the Popish Church hath, yet will not the Papists allow it for the Catholic Church.   

The 45. motive containeth the 31. 32. & 33. & 40. demands.  Ever visible and Catholic. Vniversalitic. Antiquity. Consent. 
Bristol  Protestants were never before this tyme. They are ashamed of their fathers. Hus was not a Protestant. Wicklefe was not a Protestant. Wicklefe condemned by Melancthon. Prophecy for our religion. No Scripture against the Catholics but all for them. 
Here is nothing but the old popish brag of universality, antiquity, and consent, which is as easily denied 
Fulke.  as it is always alleged without proof. Saving that in the demands, they are sundered, as though every one of them without the other two, were a sufficient trial of truth, which nether Vincentius nor Optatus, nor Augustine, nor any that used this argument did ever mean. But that is truth, which being most ancient, hath at all times, of all true Christians, by general consent been received. But this can not be proved of any one error of popery. For if any of these three be omitted, the argument is of no force to prove truth. All nations by general consent embraced Idolatry. yet was the true worship of God which was known only in jury the more ancient. The worship of jupiter was more ancient, than the honour of Christ showed in the flesh, and more universally received, but not of the true worshippers of God. As for general councils, which in the demand of consent, he saith to be all against the Protestants, he is not able to show one approved general council, that was held within six hundredth years after Christ, that decreed any thing contrary to that which we believe in any point. But confessing that in many ages some there have been in some points of our opinion, yet he saith we can show no lineal succession, but leap from Luther to Christ, without any record of our religion in all the mean time, having no monument of such Church nether in leaf or line of service book: As one that loveth antiquities well, I would fain see, what leaves the Papists can show of their service books, to prove a lineal desc●nt from Christ to Pope Gregory the 13 when Bristol sweareth perdie, to agree in all points with Pope Leo the tenth, which was in Luther's time, some of their service being made by Thomas Aquinas, some by Fulbertus, some taken out of Beda, some out of Gregory, some out of Augustine, some out of Hieronyme, some out of john Chrysostom, and of Ambrose, and the eldest I think not of Origen: which argueth nether antiquity nor universality to stand with the popish service as for lineal succession from Christ, it is unpossible for them to show.  
But Bristol will prove, that we were never before this time. For as for AErius, he knoweth we are ashamed of him. But he will prove that nether Hus, nor Wicklefe were Protestants. Because they held some opinions, that we do not. By the same reason he may prove, that the fathers of the counsels of Constance and Basil were no Papists, because they took upon them to depose Popes and decreed that the council was above the Pope, which most Papists at this day dare not affirm. AEneas Silvius doth slander Wicklefe and Hus, that for every mortal sin a Magistrate should lose his office, for their Apologies are extant to be seen to the contrary.  
But Luther (saith he) denieth that he was an Hussite, affirming that Hus was not of his opinion. Although he had been in all points of his opinion, as he was in the chief, yet might Luther justly deny the name of a man, which is proper to sectaries as franciscans, Dominicanes etc., & not to Christians. Yet Wicklefe (saith he) is condemned by Melanthon. How I pray you? First that he found many errors in him, by which judgement might be made of his spirit. If Wicklefe living in a time of so great blindness and darkness, could not see the truth in all matters, it was no marvel, and that he had errors, he showeth that he was a man, even as the best writers of the Church since the Apostles time, which might be deceived: But as we condemn not Augustine, Hierom, Chrysostom, Cyprian, and other ancient writers, because we know they erred in some things, no more have we just cause to condemn Wicklefe for some errors which it is not unlike, but he did hold, yea but Melanthon chargeth Wicklefe (saith he) to be altogether ignorant of the righteousness of faith, which is the foundation of religion. I will rather think that Melanthon was ignorant of Wicklefes' opinion, as one which had not seen but few of his works. In which as perhaps he might use the terms of merit and deserving, then commonly used in his time, yet that he had not the same meaning in them, but did well understand and hold the righteousness which is of faith, I can plainly prove by his own writings in diverse places. As upon the Heb. 10. he saith: Sith Christ is God and man, satisfaction for the sin that he made thus freely, is better than any other that man or Angel might make. The same man in number that sinned in Adam our first father, the same man in number made asseeth by the second Adam Christ. And sith he is more of virtue than the first Adam might be, and his pain is much more than sinful lust of the first Adam, who should have conscience here, that ne this sin is clansid all orst. And sith our jesus is very God that never man forfete this meed, he is a sufficient medicine for all sinners that been contrite, for Christ is ever and every where, and in all such souls by grace, and so he clanseth more cleanly than any body or figure may cleanse, and herefore as Poule saith, Christ is mediator of the new law, etc. Again upon 2. Cor. 3. Seethe man's thinking among his works, seemeth most in his power, and yet his thought moat come of God, much more each other work of man etc. Thus should we put of pride and wholly trusten in jesus Christ, for he that may not think of himself, may do nought of himself, but all our sufficiency is of God by the mean of jesus Christ. Likewise upon the 8. to the Romans. Sith God sustaineth man and moveth him and helpeth him for to travel, how had it not come of grace, and thus reward of this travel moat needs all come of grace. These places and many other show that Wicklefe was not ignorant of the righteousness of faith. It seemeth therefore that Melancthon had seen only the articles which his adversaries had gathered against him, and not his own writings and discourses.  
The prophecies, which Bristol boasteth to be for their religion, be of jeremy and Esay, for the perpetual continuance of the true Church of Christ, but seeing it is proved that the popish Church hath not been from the beginning, those prophecies appertain not unto her. How the Church is visible, is showed in the 37. motive whereunto I add, that while the Papists glory of a visible Church on earth, jerusalem that is above, and therefore not subject to the eyes of earthly men, but of such whose convetsation is in heaven, is the mother of us all. Finally if Bristol could as truly prove, as he doth boldly say, that no Scripture is against them, but all for them, he should have no Protestants to be his adversaries, who more accept of the authority of the holy Scriptures, then of all other motives in the world.   

The 46. motive is the 39 demand.  Where grew the Protestants seed before our time. The church hath rehearsed wednesday fast long sithence. A Bishop 
Bristol.  is above a Priest. The Saints were of our religion. Baptism necessary for salvation of children. Anabaptists. Why there be so many Atheists in England. Trinitaries. 
Such seeds of our doctrine (saith Bristol) as have grown before this time, did always grow in evil 
Fulke.  ground, namely in heretics as denial of prayer for the dead in Aerius, who beside that error was an Arrian. He chargeth us also with denying the ordinary fast of the church, but that is false. For we hold that the fast which is appointed by the church, aught to be observed, although we hold that no man is bound to the blasphemous, superstitious, and counterfeit fast of the Popish synagogue. In that time in which Aerius lived, there were other times of fasting appointed, than such as the Popish church observeth. But the wedsnesday fast (saith Bristol) the church hath released. In what general council good Sir: are you able to show: likewise of other times of fast named in Epiphanius? if you be not able to show this where is either your universality, antiquity, or succession in doctrine and discipline, without interruption.  
More than this (saith he) Aerius did hold, that a Bishop & a Priest be equal, which also the protestāns do maintain. In preaching the word and ministering the Sacraments. S. Hierom Euagrio is of the same opinion that they are equal likewise in Epistad Titum. cap. 1. showing that a Bishop is preferred before a Priest magis ecclesiae consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate rather by custom of the church to avoid schisms, then by truth of the lords disposition. Furthermore one of the Protestants seeds is, that we must not pray to Saints, but this was held of certain heretics in S. Bernardes' time who were called Apostolici & were also anabaptists, denying the baptism of infants. The conclusion is, that these opinions can not be good, because they are found in some heretics. And the contrary opinion must needs be true, because they are found in some holy men, as in S. Athanasius, Epiphanius, Augustine. etc. Although these opinions are but few in comparison of so many articles of religion, in which we descent from the Papists, which if they could be found in heretics, we should soon hear of them: yet what Logic is in this conclusion of Bristol, you shall see by examples of the like, and even of the same heretics. Aerius, as Augustine reporteth out of Philastre, did also receive into his fellowship none but such as wete continent, and had so renounced the world, that they possessed nothing in common, likewise they abstained from flesh. The very same doth bernard report of the heretics called apostolic, that they rereverenced marriage, and abstained from all flesh and whitemeates. In canti. ser. 66. This devilish seed prophesied before to be the note of Antichristian hypocrites, grew in many heretics before the time of the Papists, and not these only, but many other also. Worshipping of Images in Carpocratians Ep. 1. lib. 1. T. 2. prefat. contr. Gnostic. 27. 29.  
The superstitious estimation of the cross in the Valentinians Epiph. Ho. 31. Transubstantiation of the wine into blood in Marcus and the Marcosians Ire●aeus lib. 1 cap. 9 Prayer for the dead in the montanists. Tert. de Monon. & de Anima. etc. Invocation of Angels in the Caianites and many other Popish plants were first sown by the devil in elder heretics. And yet were this no good argument to confute these opinions or errors, because they are found in heretics, except they were found to be contrary to the word of God. All is no heresy, whatsoever an heretic hath affirmed, for there was never heretic, but affirmed much truth, neither is all truth that is affirmed by every Saint and holy man, for not one of the ancient writers but is acknowledged to have affirmed some untruth. Only the holy Scripture ought to have this pre-eminence, as Augustine saith, that it may judge of all sayings and writings, itself being judged of none, because it is the word of God which can not err or be deceived. Cont. Crescon. gram. lib. 2. cap. ●●. But Bristol hath Scripture to prove that he which denieth prayer for the dead, being found among the Arrians & Anabaptists, can not choose but be bound in bundles with them and cast into the fire. Mat. 13. In deed he that is an Arrian or Anabaptist shall not escape for denying prayer for the dead. But the Angels that are the reapers, are not so unskilful, but that they can discern true Christians denying the abuse of prayers for the dead, which the Scripture doth not admit, from blasphemous heretics, among a great number of falsehoods affirming some truth.  
But it is a sore matter, that he saith, The very worst sort of heretics of this time, as the anabaptists, Trinitaries, yea the very Epicures and Atheists, were first Protestants, ye such they be and will seem to be still. He had spoken more truly, if he had said they were first Papists. But what heretics and Atheists would seem to be, it is no dishonour to our cause, seeing all hypocrites would seem to be true Christians. That only Papists are troubled in our country, and all other sects tolerated and maintained the public execution and punishment of anabaptists and other blasphemous sects as the Family of Love etc. doth plainly prove to be false, and Bristol to be a shameless slanderer.   

The 47. motive is the 50. demand.  Sure to continue. The church is everlasting and visible. 
Bristol.  Protestants do decay and shall come to nothing. The church's continuance. S. Augustine's motive. England beware destruction. Luther was a false Prophet. 
I need not to show, how often and how vainly Bristol repeateth one thing, to make a great number of motives. The everlasting continuance of the true church hath been seven times at least before alleged. But neither is it proved that the Popish church is that true church, nor yet that any sect or company which shall continue to the end of the world is the Catholic church of Christ. For although Antichrist is and shall be more and more consumed with the breath of the lords mouth, which is his holy word yet shall he not be altogether abolished until the end of the world. Yea at the end of the world, as our Saviour Christ sayeth, faith shall be very scant, and hard to be found, and iniquity shall have the upper hand. Therefore there shall be a great church of malignant hypocrites even to the end of the world. It is true therefore, that Christ's church is sure to continue but not whatsoever sect shall continue, is thereby proved to be Christ's true church. How vain his brag is, that Protestants do decay: and shall come to nothing, by their daily increase in all parts of the world, God be thanked may be seen to all men. Likewise how true it is, which he affirmeth that Papists do increase, and to such numbers even in England that there are more Papists now, then when the Gospel was first preached, (notwithstanding so many years preaching of us and large silence of them) who living in England can be ignorant? I confess there are too many obstinate Papists in England whom none of Bristow'S motives, hath either moved unto Popery, or confirmed therein, but only great toleration and lenity which is used in these times. But if such severity were used now, as in times past, the Pope should not have many confessors in England to glory of. And to say the truth, what one of these Papists, dare profess what he thinketh of the Pope's authority, because the law is somewhat sharp in that point. If the like law were of hearing mass we should have as few suffer for mass as for the supremacy. But to return to our motive S. Augustine doth well to send Honoratus the Manichee to follow that way of Catholic doctrine which from Christ himself by the Apopostles is descended unto us, and from hence to posterity shall descend. De utilit. cred. cap. 8. But that it is not the way of all Popish doctrine which never came from Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the most ancient church. And if the tradition be uncertain, how shall we know what came from Christ and his Apostles, but that which we find in the Gospel of Christ and the Epistles of his Apostles.  
But the same Augustine (sayeth Bristol) biddeth the simple Donatists to Number the Priests even from the very seat of Peter, and in that order of fathers see, who to whom succeeded. That same is the rock which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome P. S. contra Donatistas'. Augustine speaketh of the Catholic church, which was the vine, whereof the Church of Rome at that time was but a growing branch. For a little before he saith, Scitis Catholica quid sit, & quid sit precisum a vite. You know what the Catholic church is, and what is that which is cut of from the vine. But if Bristol should urge the seat of Peter to be called of Augustine the rock, Augustine in his retractations confesseth that he oftentimes hath expounded the rock to be Christ, and so will not abide by that former exposition Retract. lib. 1. cap. 21. Neither did Augustine ever mean that the see of Peter at Rome was a rock in such sort, that none that ever should sit there, could err, for he himself, with the rest of the fathers of the council of Carthage withstood the Bishop of Rome, claiming jurisdiction in Africa by colour of a counterfeit decree of the council of Nice. Conc. Carth. 6. cap. 4. Concil. ●●phr Ep. ad Celest. what should I here repeat Pope Honorius condemned for an heretic, not only in the general council of Constantinople the 6. but also in the Idolatrous council of Nice the 2. and john the 23. condemned for an Atheist in the council of Gonstance. If the gates of hell prevailed not manifestly against that seat, yea and so many other Bishops thereof, whom they themselves confess to be damned in hell for their wicked life: we need not greatly be afraid of the gates of hell. Yea (saith Bristol) It hath been impugned ten thousand times more than any other, but all in vain, frustra circumlatrantibus haereticis saith S. Augustine. In vain is the barking of heretics all about it. De util cred. cap. 17. But the place of Augustine which he citeth, is of the Church of Christ and not of Peter's seat, round about the which, the heretics have barked in vain. For even in that seat, but yet out of the Church, Liberius had barked Arrianisme, Marcellus gentilism, and after his time Honorius barked with the Monothelits as his epistle which remained after his death declared. Vigilius also by his epistle was proved to bark Euty chianisme, Liberat. cap. 22. john the 23. barked with the Sadduces against the resurrection of the dead, cont. Constanti. sect. 11. The see of Rome therefore is no more the rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, than the see of Canterbury or London. But saith Bristol who can say that there shall be always a bishop of Canterbury or London? Verily, no more can any man say, that there shall always be a Bishop of Rome. And whosoever saith, that there hath been always since Peter a Bishop of Rome, shall lie most impudently. For the See hath often ly●n void, not only for a short● time, while a new Bishop might be chosen: but many years together. Again the See hath been translated from Rome to Avignon, and the Pope's Court kept there for threescore years together by which it is manifest both that the City of Rome ha●h not been the perpetual See of Peter's successors, and that Peter's successors have erred in removing their Court from that City, which Peter chose to be head of the world and Constantine gave (as they say) to be the head of the church, which might have forborn so great a gift like as Peter also might have spared his travel in removing his see from Antioch to Rome, if they could have foreseen that the Pope's court might have been kept as well in France, as in Italy, at Avignon as at Rome.  
But Luther is charged to be a false Prophet, for that he saith in his book against King Henry, That he was sure that he had his doctrines from heaven. That his doctrine should stand and the Pope should fall. That God should see whether first be weary and fail, the Pope or Luther. The note of a false Prophet in Deu. 18 is to give a sign which doth not follow, & so hath Luther done saith Bristol. For Zwinglius hath overcome Luther & Caluine Zwinglius and the Puritans the Protestants in England. To this I answer, that Luther doth not take upon him to foreshow things to come by any special revelation, but only affirmeth that his doctrine in as much as it is agreeable to the word of God, is from heaven, & shall continue, whereas the Pope's doctrine being the doctrine of the devil shall come to nought. And in this victory, (if he please so to term it) hath not the Pope lost by prevailing of Zwinglius and Caluine. And was that opinion of Luther which they have impugned, I mean of the carnal presence Luther's or the Popes? But whereas the slanderous hypocrite, would make men think, that Caluine hath opposed himself against the doctrine of Zwinglius, the consent of the churches of Helvetia with them of Sabaudia being publicly set forth to the world, doth openly testify the contrary. Also the contention of those whom he calleth Puritans in England, is not so great, nor about so great matters, that any such division is to be feared, which might cause desolation of the kingdom. Add hereunto that Bristol said in the 40. motive, that the Protestants of England be in a manner all in heart Puritans, whereby he confesseth against himself, that there can be no deadly contention between them, that in heart are all one.   

The 48. motive.  How to make plain demonstration that the heretics have no evidence & that we have all. Who be wresters of the Scriptures. 
Bristol.  The inconstancy of the Protestants: The understanding of the Scriptures is in the church. 
This wise demonstration is a plain declaration, that 
Fulke.  he which made it, knoweth not what a demonstration meaneth, but such as it is, let us see what is in it.  
First he would have it proponed by a Catholic, to his friend that is in heretic, to be considered, seeing all these motives beginning with holy Scripture, approved traditions etc. be for them & against us, what is the cause that we cry so shamelessly & deceitfully the Gospel, the word of the Lord, the touchstone of God's book? And lest we should say, that he beginneth with a false supposed & shameful begging of the principle, he will prove that all these evidences are for them, and so must the heretic that you will deal withal be made in the beginning to confess, Yea Sir, but how will you drive him to this confession? Forsooth saith Bristol, they all confess it many ways indirectly. First in that they use not the same evidences themselves, in their declarations. Secondly in that they admit no evidence but only Scripture. To the first I answer they use as much of this evidence, as is good & agreeable to the holy Scripture. To the second I say, that if only Scripture be on our side it is more than all the rest against the Scripture, and again if only Scripture be on ourside, than all the motives be not on their side, for Scripture is one of them, the 8. in the motives the first in the demands. But the Papist must make his friend say as much directly or else say expressly to every one of them whether he will be tried by them. As a friend to the presones, though an enemy to the errors of such Papists as are curarable. I have said expressly and particularly to every one of them, showing whether it be a true and proper note of the church, and if it be, that it belongeth to us and not to them. Although Bristol say, that this way we know full well that they shall have the victory flying therefore evermore to our weak & false castle of only Scripture. That the scripture only is our castle, we do gladly admit, but that the same is a most strong true & impugnable castle, none but a blasphemous heretic will deny. But you must (saith Bristol) still labour to get them (& if you can) with their consent, out of the castle into the plain fields aforesaid, to make them grant expressly that there in your hands they can not stand. Nay Bristol you must beat us from our castle if you can, for we will never consent to go out of it for defence, except it be to offer you the advantage, not in the plain fields as you call it, but among your petty piles and small holds. And so we have done often. So did that reverend father the Bishop of Salisbury, in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefully foiled in your own ground and many of your forts beaten about your ears. But you do not well to teach your scholars to seek a gentle adversary to fight withal, which must first of all be willing to lay down his sword and shield and then you are good enough for him with your manly motives with which when you have treandled him about like a tennis ball, you send him back again to his castle of only Scripture, to see whether they will bear him out in his opinions. For example, is not this Scripture manifest enough on your side and against us? This is my body. This is my blood? Mat. 26. Verily even as plain as this. They did all eat the same spiritual meat. They all drunk of the rock that followed them & the rock was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one manner of speaking, and both of one matter. Therefore they have both one meaning. The second example is. By works a man is justified & not by faith only jac. 2. And this is also Scripture, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by faith of jesus Christ G●lat. 2. And again by grace you are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God) not of works lest any man should boast. The later being in manner of speaking contrary to the former text do plainly show, that these two Apostles, speak not both of one kind of faith or justification. But that james speaketh of a dead faith as his words are plain Vers. 17. and of justification before men. Paul of a living faith and of justification in the sight of God. The third example is out of james 5. Where I must first note, that Bristol in translation doth manifestly corrupt & falsify the Scripture. The Latin is, Infirmatur quis in vobis? If any amongst you be dangerously sick let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray over him anealing him with oil in the name of our Lord etc. First Bristol addeth this word dangerously of his own head, which is neither in the Greek nor vulgar Latin text, to draw the text of james violently, to their popish greasing which they use only when a man is desperately sick, and past hope of recovery in thei● judgement. Whereas james speaketh generally, of any kind of sickness, wherewith any of the faithful were molested. Secondly Bristol leaveth out the words following, which are these and the prayer of faith shall save the sick person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him up, the Latin is alle●iabit shall ease him, which words declare, that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpetual Sacrament of the church, but of a ceremony used by them that had a special gift of healing the sick in the primitive Church which ceremony must needs cease, with the gift except it be among apes, that practise outward gesture and actions, without effect. The other two examples out of the 2. of Maccabees the one of praying for the dead, the other of jeremy praying for the people, are no parts of the castle of Canonical Scripture, and therefore with other errors in the same books I omit them. The last example is out of Genesis 48. The saying of jacob the Patriarch of joseph's two children. God who hath fed me from my youth even to this day: The Angel who hath delivered me out of all adversities, bless these children which is (saith Bristol) as if one would say, God and our Lady bless them. Nay rather God by jesus Christ bless them, for what other Angel but Christ the Angel of the great council was the deliverer of jacob, which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God. Even the same Angel which led the children of Israel through the wilderness, whom S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ, who was not an Angel by nature but by office, & in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliver the people before he came in the flesh. But if we should understand, the Angel of whom jacob speaketh, for sun private Angel, appointed of God to protect him, yet is it not as if one would say now God & our Lady bless them. For that God useth the ministry of Angels to defend & prosper his servants, but not the ministry of Saints in heaven, for any such purpose that we can learn by the holy Scriptures. jacob might therefore pray that God would send his Angel to protect those children, even as he had done for him. As for that vain brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse is for them & against us, is nothing else but a false alarm, as though he would on all sides assault our castle of only Scriptures, whereas he purposeth nothing less. But this can not be borne, that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so plain against us, that we can not answer them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote them meaning that we deny the authority of such books as be not Canonical the Maccabees especially. But this he saith can not be. For either they are proved mu●ncibly to be of the holy Ghosts indighting, or no Scripture at all is proved to be such as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine. Ego evangelio non crederem etc. I should not believe the Gospel itself unless the Catholic Church's authority did compel. What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other trial of holy Scripture but the authority of the Church, because Augustine supposing that he were an Heathen, Again (saith he would not believe the Gospel except the authority of the Church, with other things did move him: his word is Commoveret which Bristol not so ignorantly as impudently translateth did compel mec. But the Catholic Church (saith Bristol) hath received these books of equal authority with the rest. Indeed the Synagogue of Antichrist in the Tridentine council hath so decreed. But the Catholic Church of Christ did never receive them, as I have showed out of Hicronime. praef in Proverb and others whereto I may add the judgement of Origine out of Eusebhist: lib. 6. cap. 18. tran. Russ. with the council oh Laodicea. Can. 59  
Mark the plainness of this demonstration, when the question & controversy is, whether they or we be the church. All scripture is for them & against us because the church that is, they have thus & thus decreed, No marvel therefore if Bristol appeal to the judgement of indifferent men, that all our prating of the scriptures is nothing else but as S. Peter saith of S. Paul's Epistles) our wresting and writhing of them by our own unlearnedness & unstableness, from the Catholic Church's unity and universality to the schism and piece of Luther, & from thence to Caluine etc. For the Church is the settled and unmovable rock, against which there is no scripture no truth but all for it.  
This is good a demonstration, as if a man should say to a vessel tossed in the broad sea with wind & waves, that in the haven there is great rest & security, but not show what course they should keep to come thither. We by the only true loadstone Pharos, and heavenly Cynosura of the holy scriptures (we praise his holy name therefore) have found the most happy haven of the holy Catholic Church of Christ, & by his help have cast out the Anchor of Faith so surely fixed not in the sand, but in the Haven itself, that all the Cables of popish motives, or blasts of Devilish doctrines shall not be able to stir our ship from thence: which course God grant them to keep, who labouring in the sea of doubtfulness, ride not wilfully among the rocks of Romish pride, nor be obstinately set on the sands of men's traditions, but seek truth in humility to God's glory & their safety.  
Besides these motives there are two demands which I cannot aptly reduce to any of the Motives, namely the second which he termeth the building of the Church, and the last which he calleth Apostasy. In the former demand he asketh us whether we have not read this argument used by Chrisostome against the paynim and jews, that Christ is God, because his Church having but a small beginning, & many strong enemies, to withstand the building thereof, yet could or can never be suppressed, but contrariwise of a little spark hath set all the world on fire etc. I answer, we have read this argument, and allow of it. Then saith Bristol, How hath it been these many hundredth years quite suppressed, yea and in Chrisostomes' time no Church at all I answer that since it was first set up, it was never for one hour quite suppressed, although by antichrist these many hundred years it hath been greatly oppressed. And in Chrysostom's time the Church did openly flourish, although infected with some errors, yet holding strongly the only tradition jesus Christ, which church was a member of the same universal Church, whereof our Church at this day is a part, with which Church in Chrysostoms' time, the popish church in that it dissenteth from us, hath nothing common except one or two errors, having the whole substance of doctrine contrary unto it: wherefore that argument standing, the popish church is nothing underpropped thereby: which though it had a small beginning, as the sect of Mahomet, yet grew it by sufferance of God, without great withstanding of strong enemies, yea God sending the effecacy of error, that it might prevail and yet hath not increased over all ●he world, but is for the most part contained in one part of Europa diminishing where it is punished as in Germany, Savoy, Denmark, Swetia and England, growing only where it is either maintained by tyranny or tolerated by lenity.  
And now to the last demand of Apostasy, wherewith he chargeth us. first for changing the Priesthood, whereupon must ensue a change of the law. so this I answer, we have changed no priesthood, instituted by God, but retain that eldership and ministry ordained by our Saviour Christ. Contrariwise the Pope hath changed Sacerdotium (which Bristol confesseth to be no other thing then presbiteratum) which is the ministration of the Gospel yet commonly called both of him and us Priesthood, that Sacrificing priesthood I say which the Apostle He. 7. affirmeth to be everlasting and proper to the person of our Saviour Christ, hath the Pope translated unto his shauevlings, and set them up to offer that Sacrifice which Christ only could offer, and by once offering found eternal redemption: yea the Priesthood of Melchisedech which the Lord by an oath confirmed only to our saviour Christ. Psal. 100 He hath made common to all his massmongers, Therefore the Pope hath manifestly made an Apostasy from the law of Christ.  
The second argument by which Bristol would charge us with Apostasy is, for receiving not one or two, but so many old heresies, besides as he is bold to say a thousand more of their own invention. This being affirmed without all show of proof. It shall suffice to deny and turn over unto him and his fellows.  
The third argument is for taking from Christian men, so many arguments of Christ's divinity, as the invincible continuance and authority of his Church. The honour and virtue of crosses and relics miracles, exorcisms, unity, Sacrifice etc. I answer so many of these as are good and sufficient arguments, we hold still, the unsufficient arguments do rather disfornish then arm the Christians faith, which we have so strongly fortified with arguments out of the holy scriptures that all the power of darkness cannot prevail against it,  
The fourth argument is, for leaving nothing undenyed, not Fathers, not Counsels, not Traditions, not Scriptures, nor (the only witness of all canonical Scriptures) the Church's institution, and departing from the Fathers of all ages since Christ's time, agreeing with no Christian time, nor none with them. For denying of canonical Scriptures, it is an impudent slander, as for Fathers, Councils, Traditions, Church's authority, we affirm or deny, as they agree or dissagree with the truth of the holy scriptures, the only certain witness of the will of God revealed unto men, which we think more reasonable than the Papists do, which deny, fathers, Counsels, Traditions, yea the authority of the holy Scriptures, and submit all unto the i●dgement of their Church, now when then the controversy is, whether they be the Church of God, or of the Devil: whereas the Scriptures are of both parts confessed to be the word of God in general terms, although in comparison of the authority of their Church, Piggius calleth the holy Scripture a nose of Wax, and a dumb judge. Eccius termeth the written gospel a black Gospel and an inkish divinity. Hosius saith, that this commandment of Christ, Drink ye all of this, being understood doth appertain unto lay men, contrary to their Church's determination, is the express word of the Devil. And for departing from the faith of the Fathers etc. I answer it is false, there is but one true Faith of all true Christians, in all times from which we will never depart, although we have departed from some erroneous opinions of some fathers, which because they are contrary to the word of God, by hearing whereof Faith cometh, they deserve not the name of Faith.  
Finally, whereas he saith, the authority of the Church is the only witness of all canonical Scriptures, it is untrue. For although he should mean not the popish Synagogue, butthe true catholic church of Christ, yet is it not the only witness of the Scriptures. For even the jewish Synagogue, is witness of the old testament, and many sects of heresies of all the scripture, beside that the spirit of God is the chief and principal witness of all, which speaketh so evidently in allthe canonical scripture, that if all men on earth should refuse to give credit unto them, yet his majesty alone is sufficient to get credit unto them, especially with all those whom he teacheth inwardly in heart, as he speaketh sensibly to their ears.  
The last argument is, That in place of all Religion and goodness which they have removed, devising a new Gospel of their foresaid only vain faith, which teacheth all sins & all heresies to presume of salvation. What can be more impudent or false than this slander, seeing God and the world knoweth, that we teach none other Faith but the faith of the Gospel, which worketh by love, and promiseth remission of sins and salvation to none, but such as earnestly repent, and are willing to remove all heresy, and to embrace all true Christian Religion and goodness.   
God be praised.   

A DISCOVERY OF THE DANGEROUS ROCK OF THE POPISH CHURCH, lately commended by Nicholas Sanders D. in divinity, at which the Catholic Church of Christ hath been in peril of shipwreck these many hundredth years, By W. Fulke D. in divinity.  
THE eternal rock of the universal Church, Christ was the rock, an other foundation no 
Saunder.  man is able to put. 1. Cor. 3. & 10.  
The temporal rock of the Militant Church: Thou art Peter & upon this rock I will build my Church. Mat. 16.  
Spawl speaketh manifestly 1. Cor. 3. of building of the Church Militant, and Christ 
Fulke.  Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternal rock, against the which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Therefore your distinction of eternal and temporal, universal and militant, which is the foundation of all your rotten rock is an impudent and blasphemous falsehood.  
Of the continuance of your temporal rock, it is in vain to contend when your rock is nothing else but an heap of sand and dung whereon your popish Church is builded.  To the right worshipful M. Doctor Parker bearing the Saunder. name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to all other Protestants in the Realm of England, Nicolas Saunder wisheth perfect faith and charity in our Lord, declaring in this preface, that the Catholics (whom they call Papists) do pass the Protestants, in all manner of signs or marks of Christ's true Church. 
Concerning the omission of titles accustomed to be given to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for which you excuse yourself, I think M. D. Parker while he lived, did not much esteem them given to him by any man, and least of all looked to receive them at such men's hands as you are: but touching the religion & church, whereof he was a minister, I will answer you in his behalf and of all other ministers and members thereof, that no excuse will serve you, upon so slender reasons as you bring, to condemn the same of schism and heresy, nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan, whereof you profess yourself to be a Champion, to be the undefiled Church and spouse of Christ. For think you M. Sanders, that we will more mislike the Church of Christ persecuted by the hypocritical cruelty of Antichrist for the space of 5. or. 6. hundredth years before our age, than we do the same, persecuted by the furious rage of Heathenish tyrants, for 300. years after the first planting of the same among the Gentills. And think you if we are now to learn, that all that glory and bright shining of Christ's Church promised by the Prophets, is spiritual and not carnal, heavenly and not earthly, eternal & not transitory? Or that we know not your synagogue to be the very contrary kingdom and sea of Antichrist, even by that outward glory, and glistering pomp of open show, that you boast of, according to the prophecy of Christ in the revelation? Apoc. 13. & 17. And as for the city built upon an hill, whereof you have never done babbling, by the plain context of the Gospel, is not the whole Church, but every true pastor and minister thereof, who are also the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and a candle set on a candlestick, to give light, not hiden under a bushel to be unprofitable. Mat. 5. And Christ hath always been with his Church, although the Church of Rome be departed from him, and he both liveth & reigneth for ever, over the house of jacob, though he be persecuted in his members by the whore of Babylon, and his name is great among the gentiles, from the Sun rising to the going down thereof, notwithstanding that all nations have drunk of the cup of her fornications. The prophecies of God's spirit do not one of them overthrow the other, but the one showeth how the other is to be understanded. And whereas you say our Church hath been under a bushel before these fifty years, because no history maketh mention of any congregation professing our faith in any towns or places of divers country's at once, I answer this is as true as all your doctrine beside. For all ancient histories that writ of the state of the primitive Church, make mention of the same faith which we profess. And although toward the revelation of Antichrist, the purity of the faith began to be polluted, yet the substance thereof continued, until by Antichrist, that great defection & apostasy was made, whereof the Apostle prophesieth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet even in the time of that a postasie, many histories make mention, of the continuance of our faith and Church in divers country's in Europe, namely England, France, Italy, or although under cruel persecution and tyranny, beside great nations of the East, which never submitted themselves to the Church of Rome, and yet retained the substance of Christian faith and profession, though not without particular errors and superstition. Wherefore although they that were blind, or far of from the Church of Christ, could not see her glory, although she had been set upon never so high an hill, no more than a city built upon the Alpes, can be seen in England, yet they that had spiritual eyes, and by God's gr●ce drew near unto his Church, did in the most obscure times, (as the world esteemeth them,) see the clear beauty of her light, and the glory of the lords hill, lifted up above all the hills in the world. Esa. 2.  
The heathen tyrants, thought by their cruel persecution, that they had utterly rooted out the name and nation of Christians from the face of the earth. Nero gloried that he had purged the world of the superstition of Christ, as appeareth in an old inscription, in a picture of stone. Neroni ●l. Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob provin. latromb. & hijs qui novam generi hum. superstitionem inculcar. purgatam. To Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus the greatest Prelate, for that he hath purged the province of thieves, and them that brought in a new superstition to mankind. Likewise another like pillar there is of Diocletian and Maximian, in these words. Diocletian. iovius Maximi. Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orientem & Occident. nup. Rom. & nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp. evertebant. Diocletianus iovius and Maximianus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti, having amplified the Empire of Rome, both in the East and West, and utterly destroyed the name of Christians, which did overthrow the common wealth, Another like there is of Diocletian alone. Diocletian. Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente adoptat. superstitione Christi ubique deleta & cultu Deorum propagato. Diocletianus Caesar Augustus, having adopted Galerius in the East, and in all places utterly destroyed the superstition of Christ, and set forth the worship of the Gods. By these inscriptions and glorious titles you see, that the heathenish tyrants, persuaded themselves, that they had utterly defaced the religion of Christ, & destroyed his Church out of the world. what marvel then, if Antichrist and his adherents, which to the cruelty of the former tyrants have added most detestable hypocrisy, have thought that they had so wholly subverted the true religion of Christ and his true Church, that the name either of Church or religion, might not seem to have remained in the world, but that of the Romish Antichrist. But as Nero the Pontif. Maximus of Rome, with Diocletiane and the rest were deceived in their time, so their successors in place, office, and wickedness, the Popes of Rome are likewise disappointed of their cruel purpose.  
But M. Saunder glorieth that in all marks and signs of the true Church, the popish Church doth excel ours. But first of all, that which is the only true mark and trial of the Church, namely the word of God, he denieth to be a sufficient mark of the true Church, yet had he before confessed the Church to be the pillar and stay of truth. 1. Tim. 3. but the rule of truth (if we believe our Saviour Christ) is the word of God john. 17. 17. therefore the word of God is the only true trial and mark of the Church.  
But let us consider his reasons, by which he would persuade us that the word of God is not the chief mark whereby the true Church of God may be known. First he saith the mark whereby an other thing is known, aught itself to be most exactly known, whereas we are not agreed what Gods word is. Note this reason of his, by which he taketh away all authority and use from the word of God, not only thereby to discern the true Church, but also to teach us any other thing that is needful for us to know. But why I pray you are we not agreed what is God's word? Forsooth because some call only the written letter and the meaning thereof God's word, other think many things are God's word which are not expressly written, but delivered by tradition from the Apostles, and by the holy Ghost, which hath written his laws in our hearts: of this later sort be the Papists, but they are easily confuted. For this principle must needs stand unmovable, that God's spirit is never contrary to himself. Therefore seeing the spirit of God hath pronounced of the Scriptures, that they are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good works. 2. Tim. 3. 16. it is certain that God hath revealed nothing by tradition, for our instruction, which is not contained in his word written, much less any thing that is contrary to his doctrine delivered in the holy Scriptures.  
His second reason is, that we are not agreed upon the written word of God, because the Protestants do not admit so many books of the old testament as the Catholics do. I answer, the Protestants do admit as many as the Catholic Church ever did or doth at this day. His third reason is, that the meaning of those books which we are agreed upon, is altogether in question between us, therefore that can be no mark of the church, which itself is not known. I answer, although heretics which are overthrown in their own conscience, will acknowledge no meaning to be true but their own, yet are there many principles in the Scriptures so plain, as they are granted by both parts, or else can not without shame be denied of our adversaries, out of which plain certain and immutable principles, all matters in controversy may be proved and the same church also discerned, which is the very cause, why the Papists dare not abide the trial by the Scriptures, but fly to traditions, even as their forefathers the ancient Valentinian heretics, of whom Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturam, quasi non rectè habeant, neque fuit ex auctoritate, quia variè sunt dictae, & quia non possit ab his inveniriveritas, qui nesciant traditionem, non enim per literas traditam sed per vivam vocem. When they are convinced out of the Scriptures, then fall they to accusing of the Scriptures themselves as though they were not right: nor of sufficient authority, because they are spoken doubtfully, and that the truth cannot be found of them which know not the tradition, for that was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth. Thus much Ireneus of the old Heretics, and what his judgement was of the meaning of the Scripture which M. Sand. maketh so ambiguous, he declareth lib. 2. cap. 35. universae scripturae & Propheticae & evangelicae in aperto, & sine ambiguitat, & similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt etc. The whole Scriptures both of the Prophets, and of the Gospels, are open and without ambiguity, & may be heard of all men alike. This speaketh Irenaeus not of every text of Scripture, but of the whole doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, which is so plain and easy to be found in the Scriptures, that no man can miss thereof, that seeketh not of purpose to be deceived, as he saith cap. 67. of the same book.  
But M. Saunder is content for disputation sake to admit 
1.  God's word for a mark of the true Church, and will prove that it is first with the Papists.  
For if by God's word we mean the written letter of the Bible, they are before us, because we have none assured copies thereof, which we received not of them, for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paul delivered God's word to the Romans, the Church of Rome hath always kept it without losing or corrupting.  
I answer we mean not by God's word the written letter only, but receiving and obeying the true and plain sense thereof to be the mark of the Church. Again I deny, that we had any assured copies of the old and new testament of the popish Church, but the one of the jews in Hebrew, the other of the Greek Church in Greek. And whereas he talketh of a certain day in which S. Peter and S. Paul delivered the Scripture to the Romans, it savoureth altogether of a popish fable, finally how the Romish Church in these last days hath kept the Scripture from corruption, although I could show by an hundredth examples, yet this one shall suffice for all, the very first promise of the Gospel, that is in the Scripture. Gen. 3. that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head, the popish Church hath either wilfully corrupted, or negligently suffered to be depraved, thus, ipsa conteret caput iwm, she shall break thine head, referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressly to the seed of the woman.  
The second mark is, that the Papists acknowledge more of the Bible than we do, by the books of Toby, 
2.  Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and of the Maccabees. I answer in that you add unto the word of God, it is a certain argument, that you are not the true Church of Christ, for the true Church of Christ hath ever accounted those books for apocryphal, witness hereof Hieronym praef. in proverb. Sicut ergo judith & Tobiae & Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit: sic & haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. Therefore as the Church doth in deed read the books of judith, Tobias, and of the Maccabees, but she receiveth them not among the canonical Scriptures: so she may read these two books (meaning the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edifying of the people, but not to confirm the authority of Ecclesiastical opinions. Nether is Augustine de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. (whom M. Saunder quoteth) of any other judgement, but prescribeth rules how the canonical Scriptures are to be known. And count Gaudent. epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesses plainly that the book of Maccabees is not accounted of the jews as the law, the Prophets and the Psalms, which our Saviour Christ admitteth as his witnesses: yet it is received of the Church, if it be read or heard soberly. Whereby it is manifest, that the Church in his time received it not absolutely, as part of the Canonical Scripture, but under condition of a sober reader or hearer. As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius, it hath no sufficient credit of antiquity, and much less the late counsels of Florence and Trent, which he quoteth. Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one book of Esdras, excludeth the Canonical book of Nehemias, and receiveth but one book of the Maccabees which will do the Papists but small pleasure.  
The third mark, the popish Church receiveth not 
3.  only the Hebrew text of the old testament, & the greek of the new, but also the greek translation of the septuaginta, and the common Latin translation, to be of full authority, whereas we give small credit to those translations, except they agree with the first Hebrew and Greek copies. Therefore the Papists have Gods word in more authentic tongues and copies than we have. I answer, The Tridentine council alloweth none for authentical, but the common Latin translation, that is the worst of all: but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the original truth of the Hebrew and Greek text, to be of full authority with the truth, it appeareth plainly that she is not the Church of Christ: which either wilfully confoundeth error with truth, or else lacketh the spirit of discretion to know the one from the other. And for more authentic copies it is impudently said, that the Papists do receive, for we receive not only all these which he nameth, but also the most ancient Chaldee Paraphrastes, & the Syrian text of the new testament, yea the arabical text of the whole Bible, beside, all vulgar translations of English, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, which the Papists can not abide. All those, I say, we receive as authentical copies for Christian men to use: but so that the trial of all translations be made, by the original truth of the Heb●ue and Greek texts: in which tongue, the old and new Testament were first written.  
Fourthly, the Papists do translate and expound 
4.  God's word in all manner of tongues, better than we, because they have not only internal vocation, but also external vocation and commission from the Apostles, by lineal succession of Bishops and priests: whereas we have no commission, but ●rom the common wealth which hath none authority to make priests etc.: and yet how shall they preach if they be not sent? Rom. 10. I answer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I never saw any, neither is there any translation to be showed of any Papist, into any vulgar tongue.  
And as for the external calling of the Papists, I say it is not from any lawful succession of the Apostles and ancient Church, whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations, for if lineal succession of Priests and Bishops could make interpretations good, the doctrine of Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, and many other heretics, whose external calling was according to the lineal and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priests, might be authorised for Catholic. Yea the Papists might not refuse whatsoever Luther, Bucer, Cranmer, and other have taught, which had the same lineal succession that M. Saunder doth now brag of. And as for our external calling, he saith falsely it is of the common weal etc., whereas it is of the Church, and therefore ordinary and lawful, and the saying of S. Paul whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God, whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient proof, the one to satisfy men, the other to answer our own conscience.  
Fiftly he saith it is no perfection at all on our side, 
5.  that we read God's word to the people in our Church service in the vulgar tongue, for thereby we lack the use of the better tongues, as of the Greek and Latin. O master of impudency, what use is there of the Greek and Latin tongues, to be read to the people that understand them not? And why are those the better tongues? he saith they were sanctified on Christ's cross for all holy uses, and especially to serve God in the time of sacrifice. But how were they sanctified I pray you? For soothe, because Pilate wrote the title in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, that it might be understood of all nations for what crime he was condemned. And is Pilate now become a sanctifier of tongues for God's service? is the malicious scorn of an heathen tyrant, a sanctification of these tongues? O brazen foreheads of shameless Papists. But hear more yet of this impudent stuff.  
This sanctification was the cause, that the Apostles in the East and West delivered these tongues alone as holy, learned and honourable, not regarding the infinite multitude of profane and barbarous tongues, whereof it came, that the East Church was called the Greek Church, & the West the Latin Church. But the Scripture, Acts the second, doth teach us, that the holy Ghost hath sanctified all tongues of all nations to the praising of God, and that the Apostles delivered the magnifical praises of God, in all languages. Act. 2. 11. And although the Greek and Latin tongues, were most used, & most commonly understood in the Roman Empire, yet the Church of Christ was enlarged farther than ever the Roman Empire extended in Persia, Armenia, AEthiopia, India etc. where there was no knowledge, either of the Greek or Latin tongues. And even in the Roman Empire those nations, to whom the Latin & Greek tongues were not vulgar, used their Church service in other tongues. Hieronym. in epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium telleth, that at the solemn funerals of Paul: every nation that was present, did sing their Psalms in order in their own language. Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant. In the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syrian speech, the Psalms were song in order. But seeing Master Saunder alloweth none other sanctification of the tongues, but pilate's title on the cross, how is the Hebrew tongue which was one of the three, and the most principal, as the first tongue of the world, and for the excellency thereof called the holy tongue, how is that I say, shut out from Church service, why was there not an Hebrew service established by the Apostles as well as the Greek and Latin? But yet he bringeth another argument to prove that it is lawful to read service to the people in a tongue which they understand not, by the example of Christ, who in time of his sacrifice, did recite the beginning of the 21 Psalm, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, in the Hebrew tongue, which he knew the people did not understand, and did not interpret the same in the vulgar tongue. Good Lord into what foollishnes doth satan carry their minds, that wilfully strive against the truth? For what reason is this? Christ in his private prayer, that concerned his own person, spoke with a tongue that was not commonly understood, therefore the ordinary public service ought to be in a strange tongue. Christ compassed about with his enemies, & none within the hearing of him but the virgin Mary, & john the Evangelist ●●●● loved him or regarded him spoke Hebrew, therefore the Priest in the church, must speak Latin or Greek. But when M. Sand. hath played with this argument as long as he can, his antecedent is utterly false, for Christ resited not that text of the Psalm in the Hebrew, but in the Syrian tongue, which was the vulgar tongue understood and spoken of all the people, as is manifestly proved by the word Sabac●tani reported by both the Evangelists. Mat. 27. Mark. 15. Which is of the Syrian tongue, whereas the Hebrew text is Hazabtani, as I report me to all that can but read two tongues Hebrew and Syrian. And whereas the malicious helhounds said he called for Elias, it was not because they understood him not, but because they most dispightfully mocked his most vehement prayer, taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God & of Elias, as scornful deriders use to do.  
Sixtly, lest the Protestants should pass the Papists in any one jot, they have the use of the vulgar tongues in Dalmatia, Assyria, & AEthiopia, which acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This is a loud lie, for neither the church of Dalmatians, Moscovites, Armenians, Assyrians, Aethiopians, nor any other of those East nations, that retain the name of Christ, did ever acknowledge the Pope's supremacy. I know they have feigned Fables of Letters sent from Preto joannes and such like, which are mere forgeryes upon the submission of some one poor wanderer, that hath come out of those countries. But M. Sand. will show the cause, why all Nations are not suffered likewise to use their vulgar tongues in their service. First he sayeth vulgar tongues cause barbarousness, for the Preachers of those Countries understand not the Latin and Greek tongues by this means. What an absurd reason this is, experience doth show. For when or where was greater ignorance in the Clergy, than there, and at such time as the Latin service was used? How many in all England understood or could read the Greek tongue within these sixty or eighty years? I speak nothing of the Hebrew tongue. Contrariwise what age was ever more full of liberal knowledge in all Sciences, and learned tongues, than this is even in England, France, & Germany, where service is used in the vulgar tongue? Therefore the use of thevulgar tongue in Church Service is not the cause of barbarousness.  
The second reason is, that necessity enforceth the apostolic See to tolerate these Nations in their vulgar tongues, because they know none other, but Protestants by schism are fallen from Latin to English, that is from better to worse, and therefore not to be tolerated. But indeed the necessity is, because they will not receive your Latin tongue, and our schism is from antichrist to be joined with Christ, from whose doctrine the Church of Rome by horrible schism is departed, for what the doctrine of Christ is concerning Public Prayers in a tongue that is not understood, his Apostle Saint Paul hath abundantly taught us, the 1. Corinth's the 14. Chapter. Finally we defend that our natural English tongue, is better to edify English men, than your bald Latin tongue that you use in your popish service is for any use of any man learned or unlearned.  
Seventhly the Papists do not only consider the written letter, but also the plain meaning of every proposition and as the words do sound, so do they understand them. And hereof he bringeth many examples. To this I answer, that if they understand all propositions, aswell figurative as plain & proper speeches as the words do sound, they make monstrous interpretations, as if they understand this proposition the rock was Christ as the words sound, they make a new transubstantiation of the stone into Christ, or this: This cup is the new Testament, if their interpretation be none other than the sound of the word doth give, they make the new Testament to be nothing but a drinking vessel. But to discuss his examples, the first is this text. Matth. 26.  
This is my body, why saith he is this which Christ pointeth to, denied to be his body. I answer, it is affirmed to be 
1  his body in that sense that he spoke and otherwise then he meant, it is denied to be his body.  
Again james saith Cap. 2. A man is justified of works & not of faith only. Why then are works denied to justify, or 
2  only faith taught to justify. I answer works are not denied to justify before men, and only faith is taught to justify before God. Rom. 3.  
The doers of the law shallbe justified. Rom. 2. Why then 
3  teach you the law not to be able to be done. Because the Apostle saith, that of the works of the law none shallbe justified before God. Rom. 3. 20. for if the works of the law could be done, by any man perfectly as the law requireth, he should be justified by them as the text affirmeth  
By the obedience of one, that is Christ, many shall be 
4  made righteous. Rom. 5. Why then are we denied to be really righteous, and said to be righteous by imputation only? Because the obedience of Christ is not really our obedience, but by imputation of God through faith.  
The love of God is spread in our hearts by the holy ghost, which is given us. Rom. 5. This is more than a bare imputing 
5  of righteousness to us, yea Sir, but this is not our justification, but an effect thereof, for he said immediately before that being justified by faith we have peace with God.  
Whose sins ye forgive they shallbe forgiven them. joh. 20 
6  Why then are Bishops and Priests denied to forgive sins. We grant that true Bishops and elders have authority to forgive sins in God's name, but not absolutely.  
He that is great among you, let him be made as the younger. 
7  Luke 22. Why then deny you that one was greater among the Apostles, and is still among the Bishops their successors. One was not greater among the Apostles in authority, for their greatness was to be the greatest servant & to take the most pains, & to be most humble. Mat. 18  
Thou art Peter or a rock, and upon this Rock I will build 
8  my Church Mat. 16, Why is the militant Church denied to be built upon'ns. Peter and his suceessors in that chair and office.? The Church is affirmed to be built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, and so upon Peter as one of them, in which office he hath no successors.  
Keep the traditions which ye have learned, either by word or by an Epistle. 1. Thessa. 2. Why then are traditions 
9  so despised that the name cannot be suffered in the English Bible. It may and is suffered in that sense, which the holy Ghost useth it, but not to bring in prayer for the dead or any thing contrary to the scripture, under the name of traditions apostolic. For the Apostle speaketh only of the doctrine which he delivered to them, either by preaching or by Epistle, which is none other, then is contained in the holy scriptures. For of other traditions pretended to be of the Apostles, he biddeth them take heed in the same Chapter. vers. 2.  
He that joineth his Virgin in marriage doth well and he 
10  that doth not join her doth better. Why make you marriage as good as virginity? For such as have the gift of continence we grant virginity is better in such respects as the Apostle teacheth,  
Vow eye and render your vows unto God. Psal. 75. If 
11  thou wilt be perfect go and sell all things which thou haste & give them to the poor & follow me. Mat. 19 There are eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of Heaven. Obey your Rulers, and be subject unto them? Why then are the vows of poverty, of chastity and obedience, counted unlawful, or men constrained not to perform them. The first text pertaineth to the old Testament, The second is a singular trial to that one place. The third we grant in them to whom it is given, the fourth we never made question about it, but all these are evil favouredly patched together, to prove the vow of Monkery lawful, which is superstitious for want of God's commandment, blasphemous for the opinion of merit, impossible for the frailty of many men's nature. As for compulsion there is none used, for no man is compelled to be rich, unchaste or disobedient.  
Do ye the worthy fruits of penance, Luc. 3. Why then 
12  is satisfaction and penance desptsed with you? This text is, Do ye the fruits worthy of repentance. We honour the fruits worthy of true repentance, and exhort all men to bring them forth, but popish satisfaction hath nothing like to them. For we believe that God doth freely forgive the penitent for Christ's sake.  
The husband & wife being two in one flesh, is a great 
13 . sacrament or mystery in Christ, & in the church. Ephe. 5. Why is then the marriage of faithful persons denied to be a sacrament. If you understand a sacrament generally, for every mystery, we may grant you it is a sacrament, but if you understand a sacrament specially for an outward sign of God's favour & grace or a seal of our justification it is none. For if it were it should be necessary for all men to receive it, again it hath the institution of God before the fall of man, therefore can be no sacrament of the new Testament to testify our restitution. Your common translation turneth the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a holy secret, oftentime Sacramentum, yet I know you would be ashamed to confess so many sacraments of the popish church, as there be mysteries which he calleth sacraments as Ephe. 3. the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles he calleth Sacramentum. 1. Tim. 3. So he calleth the incarnation of Christ sacramentum pietatis. And are you not ashamed to delude ignorant men, with the ambiguous name of a Sacrament.  
Work your salvation with fear & trembling Phi. 2. Why then are you so presumptuous, as even by faith to assure your 
14 . selves of you salvation? because it followeth immediately that it is God which worketh in us both to will and to perform according to his good will, for it is no presumption to assure ourselves that the promises of God are true. And he may welfeare, which is assured to be saved, for faith doth not exclude but plant in us the fear of God, though not a servile fear. As for the deep secrets of God's predestination, we take not upon us to know them, otherwise than they be revealed by his word. Finally, where you ask whether faith be not an ordinary gift in the Church, I answer you with the Apostle, that all men which are in the outward face of the Church, and participate the Sacraments, have not faith. 2. Thess. 3. 2.  
The 8. mark of the Church if not only the plain 
8 . understanding of any one sentence, but also the circumstance of the place, and the conference of God's word be necessary, the Papists have used it in every question. For proof hereof M. Sanders referreth us to his treatise of the supper of the Lord lib. 4. and to his book of Images cap. 2. & 11. & in this book to the ca 2. & 4. I answer you make a light show, for a fashion, but you nether consider the circumstances rightly, nor make any true collation of one place with another, as is proved by the answers of these books: Therefore your Academical conclusion is false, heretical & blasphemous, that the only word of God, being never so well handled, is no sufficient mark to show the truth. When Christ saith, Sanctify them in thy truth, Thy word is the truth. joan. 17. 17.  
The 9 M. Saunder saith: the heads of the Church, the 
9 . counsels, the Bishops and the ancient fathers must be judges whether we do well apply the Scriptures or no? as whether S. Peter be the rock which M. jewel denieth, & he proveth by 16 doctors afterward cap. 4. of which proof we shall consider God willing in due place. But whereas M. Saunder quoteth Aug. cont. julian. lib. 2. for his rule of judges: I say, he hath no such rule in that book, only Augustine doth convince the arguments of the Pelagians of novelty, by the judgement of Iren. Cyprianus, Rhevanus, Ambrose etc. and other, which lived before their time, and therefore were no partial judges, so do we convince the Popish heresies, and their arguments of novelty, not only by the manifest word of God, but also by the testimony of the most ancient fathers, although we may not admit all that they did write to be true, even as the same Augustine being pressed with the authority of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Cyprian by the Donatists & Pelagians, provoketh from them only to the Scriptures. de nat. & gra●cap. 61. de unit. eccl. cap. 16. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. de gratia Christ. cap. 43. That the allegation of the fathers sufficeth not of itself, we agree with Master Saunder, but that there is any other trial of the truth than Scripture, we will never grant, seeing God hath therein delivered his whole doctrine, whatsoever is necessary for us to believe that we may be saved. joh. 20. 31.  
But the Papists for the tenth mark join tradition and practice of God's church, which can never deceive amam. We 
10 . think saith Chrysostom the tradition of the church to be worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? ask no further. But how shall we prove it to be a tradition of the church. The Valentinians (as I showed before out of Irenaeus) denied the Scriptures to be sufficient, without knowledge of the tradition. Therefore to discern the tradition of ●●●● church from the tradition of the heretics, we have none other trial but by the Scriptures. Therefore Chrysostom saith in 2. Cor. Ho. 3. that S. Paul did write the same things which he told them before in preaching. As for the universal practice either of the Pope's supremacy, or of the sacrifice of the mass which he braggeth of, shall never be proved, but the contrary.  
The eleventh mark is the authority of general councils confirming the truth, & condemning heretics, & 
11 . such he maketh the late council of Trent to be. But we deny that Conciliabulum, of a few Popish hypocrites, to be a general council, in which no man should have a definitive voice, but they that were accused of heresy and whereof, he that is most of all charged with heresy, that is the Pope, is made the supreme judge, wherefore the Papists have no lawful general council on their side, although general councils as he confesseth, are no sufficient trial of the true church, both because they may be hindered many ways, and also because they may err, as did the conncells of Arimine, and Ephesus.  
In respect of these considerations, he maketh the twelfth mark to be the supremacy of the Pope, whichiss 
12 . wholly theirs for trial whereof, this book following was written. But for proof that Christ hath appointed such a judge, over all, he citeth joan. 21. that Christ commanded Peter to feed his sheep, as though that pertained not to every one of the Apostles, as much as to Peter. Also Lu. 22. that Christ having prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, commanded him when he was converted from his fall, to confirm his brethren, which pertaineth only to the person of Peter, and can not with any cable ropes be drawn to the Bishop of Rome, or any successor of Peter, for it concerneth his singular, full, comfort & duty, in respect of his fall & God's mercy, except that according to analogy, it may be applied to any man, that is so raised after his fall, and so that precept confirm thy brethren, giveth no special commandment to the Pope, but to every. man whom God hath mercifully converted as he did Peter.  
With the twelfth mark M. Saunder would have ended, but that the Protestants, affirm the lawful preaching 
13 . of God's word, and the lawful administration of the Sacraments to be a mark whereby they willbe tried. But seeing lawful preaching & ministering must be tried by God's word, M. Saunder first asketh what we call God's word? & secondly he asketh if he have not proved it to be more with than than with us, whatsoever it be? It is like this Popish academical Atheist, hath proved God's word to be on his side, ●●●● will not have it certainly known what Gods word is. After this he will prove the Papists to be most lawful preachers, because they are likest to the Apostles, in converting many nations, within these 900. years, when he saith no man alive could once hear us peep. As though controversy of nations would argue a true church. By which reasons not only the Protestants may now prove themselves to be most like the Apostles in converting so many nations of Europe, but also the Arians, and most of all, the Mahumetists, might prove themselves the true church. It is not therefore conversion of nations, but conversion of them to the true doctrine of the Apostles, which maketh us like the Apopostles: & the Papists, Arians, & Mahometists most unlike unto them. And where he saith, that no sound of ours was heard in 900. years space by any man alive: to see how impudently he lieth, read Flaccius Illyricus in catalogo testium veritatis, & you shall see in all ages, what monuments are extant of some few, whom God reserved from that general Apostasy of Antichrist. Read also the acts & monuments set forth by M. Fox, & you shall see the same most plentifully. He will prove their administration of the Sacraments to be more lawful than ours, because they have five more than we. But I answer because they have five more than the word of God alloweth, or the primitive church acknowledgeth: & in the administration of the other they have either altogether perverted the institution, as in the lords supper: or shamefully corrupted it with superstition, as in baptism: they are not the church of Christ, but the church of Antichrist.  
When we allege the persecution of the Romish Antichrist, to be the cause that our church, hath not flourished 
13  in outward peace, & to be a mark also of the truth of our congregation, what masters (saith D. Sanders) antichrist's persecution shall dure but three years, & an half, and is the Pope Antichrist, who hath dured these 900. years? But good M. Doctor determiner, how prove you that antichrist's persecution shall dure but three & an half, of such years as the Pope hath dured 900. you quote Dan. 7. Apoc. 13. you might by as good reason say it shall dure but three days & an half Apoc. 11. 9 will you take upon you so precisely to determine of the mystical number which is sometime called 3. years & an half, sometime 42. months, sometime 1260. days, sometime 3. days & an half, sometime a time & times & half a time, all which make half a Prophetical week, & signify a time determined of God, but not plainly revealed to many.  
Secondly you ask, how it could be the true church, against which Antichrist so long prevailed, that no man could tell whether any such were in the earth: when hell gates shall not prevail against the true church? I answer, if you can not put a difference between impugning & prevailing: you will have much to do to defend your Romish church to be the true church, against the Turks themselves, who have possessed a great part of ●●●● ground, which you say pertained once to your church. But herein appeareth the mark of the true church, against which the gates of hell have not prevailed, that although Satan was let lose, the whore of Babylon drunken with the blood of her members, her two witnesses slain, she herself driven into the wilderness, her seed persecuted wheresoever they were dispersed, yet she is restored in the sight of the world, her witnesses raised from death to life, the devil is vanquished, the purple whore of Babylon is fallen, & Antichrist shall at length be thrown into the lake with the devil and his Angels. This is the lords work & it is marvelous in our eyes.  
If either persecution, or not failing in persecution, be a mark of the church, it is more in the Papists than in the 
15 . protestāns, for persecution he will prove that they be persecuted by us, as the mother by the child, which departeth from her obedience, as Agar & Ishmael from Sara. But I answer, we are departed from Agar, under whom we were in bondage to Sara by whom we are made children of the heavenvly jerusalem: & even as Agar departed from Sara, so did the synagogue of Rome from the Catholic church of Christ. For not failing in persecution, experience teacheth in all countries, which have received the Gospel, how small punishmenty greatest number of Papists will abide, for their Popish profession: whereas so many thousands Go●s Saints being most cruelly murdered by the popish church, the church of Christ is not diminished but increased thereby, even as Cyprian saith the blood of the martyrs is the seed of church.  
If antiquity be a mark, it is proved to be on the Papists side by this reason. The church is all one, the later part of the church for 900. years last passed is on the Papists side therefore the former part also. But this reason standing upon a shameful begging of that which is questioned, is soon turned upon your ownen neck. The church is in all but one, but the beginning of the church maketh not for you, therefore that which you say is the later part of the church, being contrary to that former, is no part of the church, so that by this reason, you shall neither have antiquity or any part of the church.  
But if you appeal to particular examples (saith M. Saunder) I say the Christians in the primitive church, did 
2 . communicate under one kind at Emaus, and at jerusalem. And I say M. Saunder, if he would burst himself with study, shall never prove it. He quoteth Aug. de consen. evang lib. 3. cap. 25. whose opinion was that Christ gave the sacrament at Emaus, but of communion in one kind, 
3 . he never once dreamt.  
He saith the Christians did set up images in the honour of Christ, quoting Eus. lib. 7. cap. 14. whereas Eusebius speaketh of heathen men, that of heathenish custom did set up images and not of Christians.  
Dionysius although he be ancient, yet he wrote not 
4 : in the time of Eusebius, Hieronymus or Gennadius, & so was known for no writer in the Church for 500 years after Christ, Wherefore I will not stand about his errors and ceremonies, which yet for the most part are as unlike the popish ceremonies, as they are to ours.  
Although we have no certainty of the writings of Ignatius which are extant, yet is there nothing in them that favoureth the Papists religion. He nameth a a sacrifice which could not be offered without the Bishop, that cannot be the Mass, which every head geprieste may say, ad Symrn. He would have the Emperor obey the Bishop (saith M. Sand.) ad Phil. But this proveth the Epistle to be counterfeit, for there was no Christian Emperor when Ignatius lived. (Although in divine matters the Christian Emperor ought to obey the Bishop, or rather Gods word which the Bishop preacheth.) Also he speaketh of Virgins that had consecrated themselves to God: & who speaketh against them, which having the gift of continency do keep virginity? In the same Epistle: He affirmeth both Peter and Paul to have been married, and will not condemn the marriage of church ministers.  
He commendeth the lent fast ad Antioch. Choose M. Saunder, whether your decretals lie of Thelesphorus that invented the lent fast, or that this is a counterfeit Epistle of Ignatius. In the Epistle ad Phil. Where he commendeth the 40. days fast, the Wednesday & the Friday fast he saith farther. Quicunque dominicum aut sabbathum non ieiunauerit praet●r unum sabbathum pas●ae ipse est Christi interfector: Whosoever shall not fast the lords day or sabbat beside one sabbat of Easter he is a murderer of Christ. If this be true antiquity: why doth the church of Rome omit fast on Sunday: if it be counterfeit? why is not M. Saunder ashamed to allege it?  
justinus witnesseth that water was mingled with the wine. 
5 . Yea but it was to allay the strength of the wine, not that it was necessary for the Sacrament, though afterward it grew to a superstitious observation. He saith further, the Deacons carried the consecrated mysieries to them that were absent which Caluine reputeth for an abuse. If they carried the bread & the wine as the Sacrament, it was an abuse not to be warranted by God's word. But seeing the Deacons office was to minister to the poor: I think rather they carried it as the alms of the church, to such as were needy.  
What Pius decreed we find in no writer of credit. As 
6 . for the Pope's law it is no good evidence, having a busnel of dross & counterfeit dregs to one grain of good and true antiquity. In deed Eusebius restisieth, that Victor Bishop of Rome did excommunicate the Bishops of Asia, about the celebration of Easter, but he testifieth also, that Victor was sharply rebuked by diverse other godly Bishops, namely by Irenaeus of Lions and Polycrates of Ephesus for so doing. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25.  
Tertullian saith all doctrine is false & lying that agreeth not with some apostolic church. And such is the doctrine, that the church of Rome holdeth, which agreeth with no apostolic church, no not with the ancient apostolic church of Rome. But our doctrine agreeth with all the apostolic churches that ever were, planted in the earth and continued in the doctrine of the Apostles.  
Tertullian a Montanist, speaketh in deed of oblations for the dead, but they were none other, than such as 
7 . they offered for the birth days, & that was thanksgiving. He speaketh of prayer for the dead, which he received of Montanus the heretic. The stations he speaketh of were no gaddings, but standings. The visitation of jerusalem is denied to no man that will take the pains to go thither, neither was it ever like to Popish pilgrimage, which is to run a whoring after Idols.  
We confess with S. Cyprian, that the bread in the Sacrament is changed, not in shape but in nature, to be 
8 . the flesh of Christ understanding nature for property, and the flesh of Christ to be received spiritually.  
In public offences we would have confession to be made publicly, before the Elders of the church, as Cyprian would them that fell in persecution, but of Popish auricular confession, he never spoke one word. We acknowledge the forgiveness of sins by the ministers, to be ratified by God, not binding God's judgement to it but it to God's judgement. We grant that temporal punishment for satisfaction of the church ought to be appointed unto public offenders, which may be released upon their hearty repentance, & is no more like to Popish pardons, than the stews & market of Rome is like the church of God.  
The rest which he huddleth up together, I will answer 
9 . as briefly. S. james his chair was esteemed, but as a monument of antiquity & no holiness put in it. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 15. The solemn dedicating of churches was no more like Popish hallowing of churches, than Christian preaching & praying is like to conjuration. Euseb. lib. 9 ●a. 10. The strait life of hermits was as like the Popish hermits that dwelled at every good towns end, where the other dwelled in the wilderness, as the city & the desolate wilderness are alike Ruff. li. 11. c. 4. Driving of devils by holy water, was no ordinary ceremony, but a miracle once wrought by the Bishop of Apamea, who when the temple of jupiter could not be burned with fire, that was set unto it, after he had prayed, caused water signed with the cross to be sprinkled on the altar, which being done, the devils being driven away, the temple was set on fire & burned: Theodor. lib. 5. c. 29. The authority of unwritten traditions is so defended by Basil, de sp. sanct. 27. that he affirmeth whatsoever is not of the holy Scriptures, is sin. Mor. diff. 80.  
Prayer to Saints, as the dregs of that time, I leave to be sucked up of the Papists. Repentance but no Popish sacrament of penance, is commended by S. Ambrose. The name of the mass is not in Ambrose Ep. 33. for missan facere signifieth to let go, or let pass, not to say mass, the name of sacrifice signifieth a sacrifice of thanksgiving.  
The Canon of the Popish mass is not in Ambrose, but the form of celebration of the communion in his time de Sacr. li. 4. ca 5. & 6. Chrysostom reciteth the text of S. james only to prove that God forgiveth sins at the prayers of the Elders, not speaking of the ceremony of extreme unction, used by the Papists & the Sacer. li. 3.  
Hyeronym ad Vilant. alloweth not the superstitious use of burning candles in the day time. That he will not allow Bishops to beget children, it showeth his errors, condemned by the Nicene council, by the persuasion of Paphnutius: Socr. li. 1. cap. 11. Hieronyme speaketh not of a certain number of prayers, to confirm the use of your beads, but of a certain number of the verses of the holy Scripture to be learned as a talk to the Lord. ad Furtan.  
That he which hath had two wives could not be a Priest in Hieronymus time that was a little of that chaff, which afterward overwhelmed the good corn in the church of Rome. Hierom affirmeth that he, as helper, unto the writing of Damasus Bishop of the city of Rome, did answer the synodical consultation that came from the East & the West. What is this to any purpose of the Papists? Not only the Bishop of Rome was consulted, nor he always, except the matter concerned the whole church, when no member should be left unconsulted, and not made privy.  
Finally that Augustine sayeth, that the fire by which some shallbe saved after this life, is more grievous than any pain of this life. Psal. 37, he saith the contrary de fide ad Laurent. cap 68 where he denieth that text of scripture to be understood of punishment after this life: and saveth the whole matter of purgatory may be inquired of, as a matter uncertain. The like De octo Dulcity quest. 91. & count Pelag. Hypog. lib. 5. he knoweth heaven & hell, and utterly d●nyeth the third place to be found in the scriptures. By which it appeareth, that this error of purgatory was but very young in Augustine's time. And now you see what antiquity he can boast of, for when he hath wrested & wrong all that he can, scarce two or three errors have any shadow of antiquity, & those not in the greatest matters, whereas the whole substance of the doctrine of faith in God, justification by Christ, the true worship of God, the virtue of Christ's death, the infirmity of man, the right use of the sacraments the authority of the holy scriptures, & a number more of such principal heads of Christian learning, in which we differ from them, he is as silent as a stone.  
The 17. mark, is the name of Catholics, which 
17 . M. jewel confesseth to have been of late given to the Papists, which among other things, stayed S. August. in the right faith, as he confesseth Cont. epist. Manich. lib. 4. But seeing the name of Catholics was falsely given to you, which arè now rightly called by the name of your arch-heretic the pope, papists, the only name of Catholics, which was given to you by yourselves, to shadow your heresies, cannot prove you to be Christians, or your church to be Catholic, especially seeing you lack the truth which Augustine in the same place, confesseth to be more worth than either succession, antiquity, the name of Catholic, or any other thing else.  
The eighteenth mark is the succession of Priests, and Bishops, even from the seat of Peter unto Pius the fifth in whose time this book of M. Saunder was written, which mark is approved by Augustine, by Irenaeus, by Tertullian, by Optatus & by Hieronym, as he saith, being one of the most evident of all other, but therein he belieth all these fathers whom he citeth, who never alleged the bare succession of place & persons, but joined with the continuance of doctrine, received from the Apostles, against new & late sprung up heresies. Augustine shall speak for the rest, who after he hath alleged unto the Donatists, the successions of Bishops from Peter in the unity of the Catholic church, among which was never a Donatist, the judgement of the Bishop of Rome in absolving of Cecilianus, and many such like reasons, whereunto he thinketh the Donatists should yield, yet in the end, he addeth these words. Quamquàm nos non tam de istis documentis presumamus, quam de Scriptures sanctis. Although we do not so much presume of this documents as of the holy Scriptures.  
These eighteen marks M. Saunder will have to be more richly seen in them, then in the Protestants, but what marks they are, and how they are to be found in their church, I have briefly showed. But now he cometh to a general challenge to prove that we have nothing which they lack, and we lack many things which they have. First they have a justifying faith as well as we, but not justifying alone, but with charity, which is the life of faith. But charity is a fruit of a living and unfeigned faith, not the life thereof. 1. Tim. 1. 5. the effect not the cause, and we hold with saint Paul that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Rom. 3. for charity is no instrument to apprehend the mercy of God, but faith only, therefore faith only doth justify. We are justified gratis, steely by his grace. Rom. 3. 24. therefore nothing can come in account of justification before God, but only faith. which seeing the Papists have not, they have not a justifying faith.  
We have two Sacraments, and they have seven, but seeing they have five more than Christ instituted, and have perverted the one, and polluted the other, they have but one Sacrament at the most, and that horribly profaned, I mean baptism. We have an inward priesthood (he saith) to offer up Christ in our hearts, and they offer him both in hearts and hands. But our spiritual priesthood is not to offer up Christ, but spiritual sacrifices acceptable by Christ 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. and they are horrible blasphemers, that take upon them to offer up Christ, whom none could offer but himself by his eternal spirit. Heb. 9 14.  
He saith, that the Papists believe as well as we, that Christ by one sacrifice paid our ransom for ever, when they show it to the eye in the eblation of their Mass, than the which nothing can be more contrary to the only sacrifice of Christ once offered and never to be repeated, because he found eternal redemption thereby. Heb. 10. 14. 9 12. & 25. etc.  
He addeth that they believe Christ to be the head of the Church, and show it by a real figure of one head, in earth, meaning the Pope, whom now he maketh a figurative head, as though Christ were not present with his Church, or that his Church were a monster with two heads.  
As lay men receive the communion in both kinds with us, so they d●e with them in Austria by the Pope's dispensation, as though Christ's commandment and institution were not sufficient without the Pope's dispensation. Wherein also he affirmeth a monstrous absurdity, that the Sacrament was not instituted in two kinds, to be so received, but by an unbloody sacrifice, to show the nature of his bloody sacrifice in which his soul and blood was separated from his body and flesh, and yet he saith the body and flesh of Christ, is not well contained in the cup, as his blood in the paten, with the body and form of bread, and no separation of the one from the other, and no more contained or distributed by both, then by one alone. Which saying is to be received with whoops and hisses, of all men that have their five wits.  
They have marriage (he saith) in greater price than we, because they teach it to be a sacrament, but we find it not instituted by Christ to be a sacrament of the new testament, therefore we receive it as an holy ordinance, containing also a great mystery, but yet no sacrament. But if it be an holy sacrament, why do you think it unmeet for ministers of the Church? and why doth your Pope Syricius, or rather some counterfeating Canonist in his name, call holy matrimony a living in the flesh, such as can not please God. But although marriage be honourable in all men (you say) it is not so in them that have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven, who have no more possibility to mary, than a gelded man to ●eget children. You were best then to tell the Apostle that his saying was too general, for he should have excepted them that so gelded themselves. But S. Paul saith, notwithstanding your impossibility, if a virgin do mary, she doth not sin. 1. Cor. 8. 28. You will reply he speaketh of them that have not vowed, & how prove you that Christ speaketh of them that have vowed, longer than God would give them grace to live chaste, which he affirmeth to be a peculiar gift, & not in the power of every man. Mat. 19 12. But what if your popish geldings, by neighing at every man's wife, and by tumbling in all beds, where they are not kept out by force, prove themselves to be stone horses, are they still in the number of those, that having gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven, may not possibly mary, and yet nether we will nor can possibly live chaste? But omitting these things, which they have as well as we, now he cometh to those things, which we lack, and yet many of them are very necessary: as insufflations, that is blowing upon exorcisms, that is conjuring: holy oil in baptism, chrism in bishoping, external priesthood, sacrifice, altars, censing, lights, and so forth a large rabblement of popish errors and superstitious ceremonies. And that we say falsely, in saying these are nought, he proveth by S. Paul's saying to the Galathians, praeterquam quod accepistis, beside that you have received. for once (saith he) we have received those things of our ancestors, as if S. Paul had not spoken of the Gospel, but of beggarly ceremonies, which because they are an other Gospel, and way of salvation, brought in by the Pope, then S. Paul delivered to the Galathians: we hold the Pope & then justly accursed. But we justify them (saith he) by the word of God not written I am sure, but by your counterfeit word of traditions, & as you say by books of ancient fathers, and yet not by books of the most ancient fathers: in whom is little or nothing at all of such dross and chaff, among a great deal of good corn.  
But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like things (saith he) but keep the old: humility, obedience, and unity is our fault, if we have any O faultless hypocrites, if the older truth had never been revealed unto you, against your old heresies, your faults had been the less. but now your darkness being convinced of the light, your pride, rebellion, and schism from Christ and his Church, is and appeareth most heinous and manifest.  
Now seeing M. Saunder dare not encounter with us in this very point of our contention, he sayneth an Idol of an adversary, to show his manhood upon, before his friends, that they may praise him for a worthy champion. He imagineth that we reply, that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion, as Christ and his Apostles did change the jewish religion, and then he layeth on load, that Luther and calvin's authority is not like to Christ's, whereas we make no such comparison: but affirm, that these godly preachers were sent of God, so to reveal and discover the idolatry & corruptions, maintained in the Church, as Elias, Elizeus, Oseas and the other Prophets, were sent to restore and reform the true worship of God, corrupted and decayed among the Israelites, reproving and reforming all things according to the infallible rule of God's word. And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ, according to the order of Melchisedech, I say it is horrible blasphemy, to make any successors unto Christ in ●●●● priesthood, which the holy Ghost saith, he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as passeth not from him by succession to others, because he liveth for ever. And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin. in Psal. 33. de civi. Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont. adu. leg. lib. 1. cap. 18. read the places who will, and he shall find, that these fathers speak not at all, of any propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's very body and blood in the sacrament, but of the sacrifice of thanks giving, which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God, in the celebration of the holy mysteries, for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blind and obstinate Papists, to see the books margin painted with quotations of doctors, by them which peradventure never turned the books themselves, but borrowed their quotations of other men.  
But M. Saunder saith, whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine do all things according to God's word, they are the more to be abhorred, not only because the one is contrary to the other, but also because they pretend to have their doings figured and prophesied in the Gospel, whereas there is but one Christ, which hath been borne & died but once, therefore these men have no power to abrogate the Mass, or to take away the key of ancient religion. To their dissension, I answer it is not in many points, but in one & that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of their doings, to be figured or prophetied in the Gospel, it is a dream of M. Sanders drowsy head, for they make none such, but they show the abuses of the Romish church, by the doctrine of God's word, & by the same they show the way to reform them and this, to the glory of Christ, who died but once, they abrogate the Mass, by which it should follow, if it were of any force, that he should die often, for without death & shedding of blood, there is no sacrifice for remission of sins. Heb. 9 22. & 26.  
If we deny the Mass to be that, they say it is, he answereth: that as he doth not read, that the jewish priests did err concerning the substance of their public sacrifice. So is it less possible, that the universal church of Christ should err in that public act, wherein Christ is sacrificed. Here is a wise argument, having neither head nor foot, nor any joint to hang together. For whatsoever M. Saunder readeth, we read that Urias the high Priest, made an heathenish altar in the Temple, at the commandment of the king Achas, & offered sacrifice thereon, 2. Reg. 16. We read also in josephus, that Caiaphas & divers other of the high Priests were Saducees, which could not but err in the substance of their public sacrifice, when they believed not the resurrection. Seeing the end of their sacrifices was, to signify the eternal red●ption by Christ. Now to the second part of the argument, I say the universal church did not err, though the schismatical synagogue of Rome departed from Christ's institution. But M. Saunder chafeth us away, with this double negative, no no masters, antichrists you may be, christ you cannot be. God's curse light on him, that would have any other Christ than jesus the son of God & Mary, which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaven. But it is your Antichrist of Rome, that usurpeth not only the office, but also receiveth the name of Christ & God, of his Antichristian Canonists, which I know you will not deny, though your face be of brass, because ●●●● boks may be showed to any many list to see them.  
After his large excursion, he returneth to D. Parker whom he would advise to revolt to the popish church, but he (God be thanked) having ended his days in the catholic church of Christ on earth, is now received into the fellowship of the triumphant church in heaven. I pass over how maliciously he ●ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer, for defence of whose learning and godliness, I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox. All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession. Of a great number it is as he saith, but not of all. For the opinion of the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament, was not received in the Church of England, for two or three hundredth years after Augustine's arrival, as that Homely which that reverend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury, caused to be translated and imprinted, doth manifestly declare.  
And whereas he s●orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleve, Husse, and the poor men of Lions, boasting of the external pomp and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church, I have sufficiently answered before, that both the apostasy of the church of Antichrist & the persecution of the church of Christ was so described & proficied before, that neither the one nor the other should trouble any man's conscience, which the straungens thereof, so long as the truth of the little flock & the falsehood of the revolted multitude, are manifestly tried by the authority of the scriptures.  
The conclusion of all his Preface is, that which was the cause of this treatise that there never lacked a chief Bishop in Saint Peter'S chair, whose supremacy being granted all other controversies be superfluous. Yea verily all Scriptures, Doctors, and Councils be needless, where there is such a person always at hand, who cannot err in any thing that he commandeth men to believe or do. And contrariswise if there be any necessary use of scriptures, doctors, counsels, Learning, Tongues etc. there is no such chief Bishop on Earth. But what say you M. Saunder, did there never lack a Pope to sit in Peter's Chair? Was that See never void many days, many months, and many years together? And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes, who sat in Peter's Chair? You will say one of them: but which you cannot tell. Whose voice should the people obey as Christ's vicar? The one cursed, the other absolved: the one commanded, the other forbade. Is not all your bragging of Peter's chair, and unity, thereby proved to be nothing else but a mere mockery?  
The Lord jesus confound Antichrist with the breath of his mouth, and with his glorious appearance, and defend his Church in truth and holiness, for ever and ever. Amen.  

The first Chapter.  THE state of the Question concerning the supremacy of Saint Peter and of the bishops of Rome after 
Saunder.  him. 
Upon our denial of the supremacy of the Pope, and of S. Peter, he saith we deny all primacy and 
Fulke.  chief government in the Church. Whereupon he raiseth three questions to entreat of.  
Whether it be against the word of God, that there 
1.  should be in his Church any primacy or chief authority?  
Whether S. Peter had the same primacy or no? 
2.   
Whether the Bishop of Rome had it after S. Peter. 
3.   
To which we answer with distinction of the words primacy and Church, that we affirm, there is a spiritual and eternal primacy of the universal Church, which is proper only to our Saviour Christ, which never was given to Peter, nor to any mortal man. Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches, there is & must be a primacy of order, which is temporal according to the disposition of the Church. And such primacy in the College of the Apostles might Peter have for sometime, but that he had it not always, it appeareth in the council of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Acts of which james in a manner by all writer's consent, was Precedent and Primate: and upon the controversy being thoroughly debated, pronounced the definitive sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. according to which the synodal Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia, Syria, and Cilicia, was written in the name of the Apostles, Elders and brethren.  
But concerning S. Peter, M. Saunder moveth new questions. First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter, which is a stone or Rock. joh. I. and afterward performed his promise, when he chose him to be an Apostle, Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead, the reason of the promise was declared that he would build his Church upon that Rock: the question is, whether Peter himself be that Rock, upon which Christ would build his Church, or Christ himself, or the faith and confession of peter.  
M. Saunder the spokesman for the Papists, passing over the second question, that is whether Christ himself whom Peter confessed, by this rock, denieth the faith or confession of Peter to be the perfect sense of that promise, affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter, not barely confirmed, but in respect of the promise past, the present confession, and the authority of feeding Christ's Sheep given him after his resurrection, of which four conditions the Protestants (he saith) do lack no less than three. But what do the Papists lack, when in there sense they exclude the rock Christ, the only foundation, than the which none other can be laid. 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church. Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to have Peter to be the stone whereof Christ speaketh, laying first jesus Christ to be the head corner stone, I will frankly yield unto him, that which he could never win by force, that Christ saying to Peter, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock or stone will I build my Church, meaneth even Peter himself upon whom he would build his Church, but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rock or stone to bear the whole building, (for then he should put himself out of place) but one of the principal stones of the foundation, even as all the Apostles and Prophets were, for so the holy Ghost speaketh, Ephe. 2. vers. 20. being builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the head corner stone in whom all the building being compacted, groweth unto an holy temple unto the Lord.  
Now let us consider, whether any singular authority was committed to peter, when he was willed to feed the sheep of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea, because it was said to him alone, feed my sheep, and no particular flock named, it must needs be meant the whole flock. Mark these main pillars of the popish Rock. Christ said only to Peter, come after me Satan, for thou art an offence to me etc. Therefore Peter only was an enemy of Christ. If the Pope must needs have the one text as peculiar to him, let him take the other also. Again Peter himself saith to the elders, feed as much as in you lieth the flock of Christ 1. Peter. 5. here is no particular flock named, therefore he meaneth the whole universal flock. But he urgeth farther, that as Peter loved Christ more than the rest, so he did feed the flock of Christ above all other pastors. But if labouring in preaching the gospel, be the feeding of Christ's flock, not Peter, but Paul laboured more than he, and all the rest of the Apostles. 1. Cor. 15. The answer of the Protestants to his demand, Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commanded thrice to feed the sheep, that by thrice confession and injunction to feed, he might abolish the shame of his thrice denying, and know that he was restored to his Apostleship, from which he deserved to be deprived) M. Sand. liketh not for three causes. First he saith, he had not lost his Apostleship, because his fault was not externally proved, nor confessed in judgement, nor stubbornly defended etc. as though Christ which knew and foretold his infirmity before he fell, had need of external proves, or a Commissaries court to deprive Peter of his office, O blockish reason. Although neither Caluine nor Beza do affirm, that he was altogether excluded from his office, by his fault, but that he deserved so to be, and therefore had need especially to be confirmed by our Saviour Christ more than the rest as his offence was more shameful then of any of the other. Therefore the second reason that he bringeth of his restitution, if he had lost it is superfluous. joh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were, but at this time especially confirmed, as his special case required.  
His last reason is, that admit Peter had not been restored before this time, yet now he was restored to a greater authority, than any other Apostle had received at any time, and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equal by testimony of Cyprian and Hieromes, he aunsweareth by distinction, forsooth that they were equal in Apostleship, and yet Peter was chief of t●e Apostles, and an ordinary chief shepherd or high toyshop, wherein they were all inferiors to him, and ●●ee was their Primate and their head, and this distinction he promiseth to prove exactly hereafter. In the mean time it is a monstrous Paradox, that all the Apostles should be equal with Peter in Apostleshipp, and yet Peter be the chief of the Apostles. He that can prove inequality to be where he granteth equality to be, and in the same respect, is a strange Logition. Finally where as some men granting Peter to be the rock, deny the honour to his successors, he will prove that the Bishop of Rome and none other, hath all that authority which Peter sometime had, and consequently that the Protestants come nearer to the nature & condition of Antichrist, than any pope of Rome ever did or can do.   

The second Chapter.  THat there is a certain primacy of spiritual government in the church of Christ (though not properly a lordliness 
Saunder.  or heathenish dominion) And in what sort this Ecclesiastical primacy differeth from the Lordly government ofseculer princes, and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome. Also the Apostles strife concerning superiority is declared. That there ●as one greater among the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister do not repugn. The pre-eminence of Priests above Kings. A King can not be supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes, because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiastical causes. The high Priest is preferred before the King, by God's law. The evil life of a Bishop taketh not away his authority. The differences between the Bishop of Rome and temporal Princes. That Moses was a Priest. 
THe Ecclesiastical government of the Church is a 
Fulke.  ministry, or service, by the authority of Christ and his Apostle Peter: & therefore neither properly nor unproperly a Godliness or heathenish dominion, but altogether as unlike to it, as our Saviour Christ the pattern of all true ministers, was unlike to an earthly Lord or an Heathen Prince. But whereas M. Saunder in the first sentence of this chapter saith (That no man properly can t●e Lord among the Christians where all are servants indifferently, under the obedience of one true Lord and Master jesus Christ) he showeth himself not only to be a Papist, ●ut also an Anabaptist. For the common service that we o●●e unto Christ hindereth not, but that a Christian man ●ay be Lord & King over his fellow servants and thren in Christ, as properly as ever he might be before the incarnation of Christ: who saith himself that his kingdom is not of this world: who himself was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar, to each in things that belonged to them: & that dominion which he forbiddeth unto his Apostles, like to the princes of the nations. Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church. 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians, but to the ministers of the Church only in respect of their ministry. And yet that there ought to be a government of the church, & some kind of primacy also, it is clearer by the scriptures, then that it need any proof, especially such slender proves as M. San. bringeth, & namely where he citeth this text, Feed my sheep, to signify that Peter should give every man his dew portion & just measure of victuals in convenient time: which thing neither Peter did, neither was he able to do. And much less any man in succession to him, which is not equal in gifts with him. And therefore the example of a steward, who may provide for a competent number of one family, is fond applied to make one Steward over all the world, beside him that is almighty. For although the Apostles were not limited to any certain congregation, but were general Ambassadors into all parts of the world: yet were they not appointed to give to every man his dew portion, but to appoint Pastors in every Church and town for that purpose. Tit. 1. Acts 14. verse. 23, & they themselves to proceed in matters pertaining to their general Commission.  
And therefore although M. Saunder in applying these words of jeronime Cont. Luciferanos, which he calleth, Exortem quandam & eminentem potestatem. A certain peerless and high power. And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time etc. True. Every several Pastor, or as he termeth them parish priest, dealeth more honestly than other Papists that draw the same testimonies, as proper to the Pope's sovereign authority, yet in that he argueth, that the like should be in the whole church militant, which is in every parish, it is out of all compass of reason. For that which is possible in the one, is altogether impossible in the other. And the argument is no better, then if we should say, there is one steward in every College, or great house: therefore there is is one steward over all the world. And whereas he would prove his matter good, by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles, calleth Peter the first: it is to childish & frivolous. For in every number, one or other must be the first & it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship: therefore his primacy was of order & not of authority. Nether is he always first named, for Gal. 3. 9 where the question is, of the dignity of the Apostles, james is named before Cephas, or Peter as he was indeed elected to be the principal minister at Jerusalem, by consent of most ancient writers, neither doth it follow, that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi, A prince of the people, therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men. For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people, as M. S. seemeth to say: neither had Peter by those words (feed my shaped) any authority committed unto him, more than to the rest of the Apostles. As for the name of Lord, or term of dominion, sometime given by ecclesiastical writers to the Bishop or his government, we strive not about it, so there be no such dominion by him exercised, as Christ & his Apostles forbiddeth, & as we see to be usurped and practised by the Pope of Rome, & his clergy, howsoever M. Saunder in terms of distinction, would seem to shadow it. But he will show out one of these places which we allege, as if it did utterly forbid all superiority among the Disciples, luc. 22 that the ecclesiastical primacy is clearly established and confirmed.  
First he saith most untruly, that we deny all superiority among the disciples of Christ as though we denied all government among Christians, except he do childishly understand the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiastical only: and yet we deny not all superiority among them, but that kind of primacy which the Pope claimeth, and tyrannically usurpeth. Secondly he maketh a long preamble before he come to the matter, that although the Apostles did diverse times strive for the primacy, as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 upon the request of Zebedees' wife. Mark. 10. & after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ never denied, that there should be one greater among them, and often signified, that the same should be S. Peter, especially when he said, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. If you demand why they strove for supremacy, when he had determined it, he yieldeth a substantial reason: because while Christ lived upon Earth, it was in his free choice to have appointed it otherwise, until at the last in the 21. of john, he said unto him, Simon thou son of jona. etc. By these it appeareth, that M. Saunder confesseth that no text of Scripture proveth the supremacy of Peter more directly and plainly then this of john 21. which when every Child seethe how little force it hath to prove it, you may easily judge that the Papists themselves against their own consciences, do enforce all other Texts uttered before to establish it. And namely this of Luke 22. in which he saith, that Christ taking up the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacy, ended his talk at last with Simon Peter, showing him to be that one that was greater than the rest.  
What Ass if he could speak with man's voice, would reason thus? that because Christ converting his speech from exhorting all his Apostles to admonish Peter of his special danger he stood in by his infirmity: signified that Peter was greater than all the Apostles. But we must hear him compare these words of Christ. Luke 22. with the words of S. Matthew and Mark in other places, which he saith the Magdeburgen. cent. doth huddle up, as they were alone, whereas they differ much.  
The words of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these: Whosoever among you will be greater, let him be your servitor. And whosoever among you will be first, shall be your servant. In Saint Luke 22. He that is greater among you, let him be made as the younger: and he that is chief, as he that ministereth. M. Saunder will have great difference to be in these sayings. First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatness among ecclesiastical officers, but all Christians, which is utterly false, because this kind of greatness is prescribed unto them to whom external dominion is forbidden, But that is not to all men, but unto the Apostles only and their successors: therefore this kind of greatness, is proper only unto them. For he speaketh not of greatness by humility only, but of greatness without foreign dominion and worldly dignity, and joined with service, which is peculiar to the ministry ecclesiastical. Secondly he maketh six frivolous differences, which either are false or else make no diversity in the sense of the places.  
The first, Matthew and Mark speak of any man. Who soever, S. Luke of one man, which by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pointed out. If the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do always point one certain man, it is somewhat that M. Sand. saith, but If, ten thousand times and more, (as every man meanly learned in the Greek tongue doth know) it signifieth not one certain man: then is this a fond difference.  
The second, the other speak of a desire to be great, Who so would be great, S. Luke of the effect already present, he that is greater. But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver. 4. overthrow this difference, with the former: for there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest, is taken for any one that shall humble himself, as a Child, and not for one made primate of the Church.  
The third difference is, that the letter speak of him that would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great. S. Luke of him that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater, by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greek phrase. But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the others signifieth the greatest according to the Hebrew phrase, it is manifest by the word used by both, which call him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chiefest of all. Therefore these three differences are not worth three chips.  
The fourth, S. Matthew calleth him that would be great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a servant. S. Luke giveth no name of service to him that is greater, but he is willed to be younger or underling. Yet S. Luke in another place. Cap. 9 vers. 48. calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the least which shall be the greatest. But what fond quarreling is this? Doth not the Pope call himself servant of the servants of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest service belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignity. though indeed, he yield no service, but usurpeth all tyranny. Is M. Saunder now ashamed of that service: that the Pope by solemn title hath so long professed? As for a pre-eminence of order, we deny not but it was among the Apostles, & must be in every several company: although it be not necessary, that it should be perpetual in one man, but as every Church shall ordain: but a primacy of authority over all the Church, we utterly deny that ever it was granted to Peter or any man by our Saviour Christ. M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to prove it Qui lapsus es etc. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weep, after thou haste wept, art set upright, that thou shouldesirule others, who before hadst not ruled thyself. Lo (saith he) Peter did rule others. A great myrracle, but doth it follow, that either he ruled all men, or that he ruled his equals the Apostles, of whom the same Ambrose saith, De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum & hic sapiens architectus s●iens vestigia credentium fundare populorum. Neither was Paul inferior to Peter although he was the foundation of the church, & Paul a wise builder, knowing how to found the steps of the people believing. And again in his book de incarnatione Domini ca 4. Hic inquam ubi audivit vos ●utem quid me dicitis? Statim loci non immemor sui Primatum egit. Primatum confessionis utique, non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis. This Peter I say, when he heard, but what do you say that I am? immediately not forgetting his place, executed his primacy. Verily the primacy of confession not of honour, the primacy of faith not of degree. By these places of Ambrose it appeareth, what government and primacy was granted to Peter, and how he exercised the same.  
The fift difference, is that the other Evangelists say absolutely let him be a minister & a seruau●●t, in S. Luke it is said, with a great moderation, let him be made as the younger and as he that ministereth. If this be a good argument, to prove that the ministry is more truly a greatness then a ministery: the Arrians may deny by the like, that Christ is more truly a man then the son of God: because Saint john sayeth: we saw his glory as the glory of the only begotten son of God: O beastly absurdity: and yet he sayeth: if any man say, that there was not one certain man greater among the Apostles, who might be as the younger, it is plain contradiction to Christ and he is Antichrist. But where on God's name sayeth Christ, that there is one certain man greater among the Apostles?  
The last & the least difference is, that the greater man is evidently named a little after, when Christ saith to S. Peter, Simon Simon behold Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail. And thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. Master Saunder asketh what other thing it is for Peter to confirm his brethren, but to practise and exercise his greatness over them? for every one that confirmeth is greater, than they which are confirmed. Who ever did read such impudent assertions? Peter's faith was confirmed by Marie Magdalen: therefore she was greater than Peter. Paul was confirmed by Ananias, therefore he was greater than Paul. Aquila & Priscilla confirmed Apollo: therefore they were greater than he. To conclude if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luk. 22. do necessarily prove that there was one certain man among them greatest: them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 9 of Luk. 48. doth prove that there was one lest among them. He that is least among you all (saith our Saviour Christ) even he shallbe the greatest. And least M. Saunder should renew his difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it may please him to understand, that the contention was among the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be the greater or greatest of them. Which question our Saviour Christ doth not decide, if M. Sanders difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place may stand. Wherefore hitherto Peter hath found no supremacy, and much less the Pope by prerogative of his chair, who can not be said to sit in Peter's chair, except he taught Peter's doctrine, which if he did teach as he doth the contrary, yet Peter's authority could no more be derived to him, than the authority of Moses to every one of the Scribes & Pharizees which did sit in Moses chair.  
He citeth Ambrose to prove, that there is a prelacy or preferrment in the church, because he forbiddeth contention thereabout, as though there could not be a prelacy or preferrment of every Bishop over his church but there must be one Bishop over all the church. The like he allegeth out of Bede, which speaketh expressly of all the teachers of the church, & not of one Pope over all. The conclusion of his disputation is, that the ecclesiastical primacy doth in all points resemble (as much as it possible may) the primacy of Christ, & therefore he that denieth the primacy among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kind is blasphemous against Christ himself. Nay rather, he that communicateth with any man, that which is peculiar to our Saviour Christ, that he only should, be as S. Paul speaketh of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself the primate in all things Col. 1. 18. which is the head of his body, which is, the church is found a manifest blasphemer of our Saviour Christ. But that they which excel among the Apostles, & their successors the Bishops, may be humble and yet great after the example of our Saviour Christ is no question at all. But that any hath such greatness in authority, as our Saviour Christ hath ever his whole Church, is the thing we deny. If Gregory affirm that Peter by God's commission had the primacy of the holy church, and was grown in power above the rest: it is no marvel, seeing he was so near to the open manifestation of Antichrist, which succeeded him the next save one: whose tyranny began to increase long before Gregory's time: yet was he in his pretended primacy more modest, than any that followed him to this day: Utterly refusing and condemning as profane, proud & blasphemous against Christ, the title of universal Bishop: which John of Constantinople did usurp, and other Bishops would have given to him.  
And whereas M. Saunder frameth an objection of our part, that no man can be both a minister & a governor: therefore no ecclesiastical minister can be a governor, he playeth with his own shadow. For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a servant, is also a governor. But we affirm that his government is spiritual, not worldly: unlike to the earthly government of this world, even as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. But it followeth not, because that every Bishop & shepherd is a governor: therefore there must be one Bishop and shepherd governor of them all, other than our Saviour Christ the arch or head shepherd & Bishop of our souls. 1. Pet. 5. 4. & 1. Pet. 2. 25 M. Saunder commendeth the saying of Leo B. of Rome to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica. Qui se etc. He that knoweth himself to be set over some men, let him not disdain to have some man preferred before him. But he proceedeth: sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat. But such obedience as he requireth of other, let him yield himself. By this saying it appeareth, that although Leo take much upon him, as to hear the controversies the can not be determined by the Metropolitans, yet he acknowledgeth, that in equity, he was b●●●●d to yield that obedience to others, which he required of others, if he himself were in fault.  
But M. Saunder maketh an other objection for us, on this manner. The Princes of the Gentiles, do also serve their subjects in conserving peace, keeping out their enemies etc. but the clergy must be altogether unlike to temporal governors: therefore there must be no primacy or government among them, although it be joined with service. Once again I say, we make no such objection, but we answer the Anabaptists that so object, that the government of the clergy, as it differeth in matter which is spiritual, so also it differeth in form & manner from the regiment temporal, which is with outward pomp of glory & with the material sword: & this with all humility & with the sword of the spirit. Contrariwise M. Saunder answereth this objection so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the anabaptists, & showeth himself little to differ from their opinion. First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion, as is used among the Princes of the earth, not altogether such as ought to be among them. But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion, it appeareth by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefactors, which their subjects did give them, for their bountifulness towards them in preserving them from enemies, in peace and wealth. Secondly he saith, that although the King be never so good, yet it is not the Kingly, but the Priestly power, which God chose from the beginning to rule his people withal. And although Kings serve Gods eternal purpose, & they are commanded to be obeyed, yet the making of Kings over Gods own people at the first came not of God by way of his merciful election, but by way of his angry permission. What Anabaptist could speak more heretically or seditiously against the lawful authority of Kings & Princes? But let us see his reason. Nemrod he saith, was the first King we read of: which either by force usurped, or was advanced by evil men. I answer: if Nemrod was the first that usurped authority as a tyrant: yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly authority lawfully nether was he ruler over God's people. But what will h●ouy of Melchisedech, King of Salem, was not he elected of God at the first, both to be a King & a figure of the King of Kings, who should not have had that dignity, if it had not been of itself both lawful and godly? Secondly he saith God was angry with his people for ask a King, when they had a Priest to rule them. I answer, he was not angry for their ask of a King, but for refusing of a Prince ordained by him, which was Samuel a Levite in deed, of the family of Cohath, but no Priest of the family of Aaron. For in his days were high Priests, Eli, Achitob, Achimelech. But after the days of Eli, which was both high Priest and judge. Samuel was ordained Prince or judge of the people, having authority above Achitob or Achimelech the high Priests in his time, which were sufficient to decide the controversy of the supremacy, if M. Saunder, would give place to the Scriptures. But who can discharge him of Anabaptistry, where he denieth the making of a King to be God's institution, affirming it to be, the fact and consent of men allowed in deed by God, when the Apostle expressly sayeth, it is God's ordinance Rom. 13? And where he saith that Abel, Noah, Abraham, were directly from God chosen to be Priests as Aaron, he sayeth most untruly, for they had in their family, the principality of civil government as directly, as they had the Priesthood. But neither of both in such sort, as Aaron had the Priesthood: in whom the one was distincted from the other. And of Abraham it is testified that he was a Prince ordained of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth forth the excellency of Priests by their authority in making Christ's body, with their holy mouth, as Hierom speaketh. But that proveth not the supremacy of one Priest above all men, nor of one Priest above an other. As for the ordaining of Peter to be general shepherd, and high Bishop of the whole flock, by commanding him to feed his sheep: when he can conclude it out of that Scripture, in any lawful form of argument, we will yield unto it. But this is intolerable impudency, that pretending to show how much the Pope is more excellent than any king, he asketh to what Christian king did Christ ever say? As my father sent me I send thee. as though Christ had ever said so to Peter in singular, and not to all his Apostles in general. As my father sent me, so I send you. joan. 20. Concerning the rock that he would build his Church upon, and the feeding of Christ's sheep, and lambs: we shall have more proper place to examine afterward, what supremacy they give to the Pope or to Peter either. His farther raving against the dignity of kings, who list to see, let him turn to the 57 page of his book, cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he saith, that the pomp of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith: and maketh worldly pomp as unmeet for a king as for a Bishop. But the Scripture (he saith) never calleth any king head of the Church, neither do we call any King head of the Church, but only Christ: but in every particular Church, the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chief Magistrate, not only in governing the common wealth, but also in making godly laws for the furtherance of religion, having all sorts of men as well Ecclesiastical as civil, subject unto him, to be governed by him, and punished also, not only for civil offences, but also for heresy, and neglect of their duties in matters pertaining to the religion of God. For although many civil Magistrates at the first, were enemies of the Gospel: yet was it prophesied, that kings should be nursing fathers and Queens nursing mothers unto the Church. Es. 49. Again it is an impudent and gross lie, when he saith that God was angry because the government of the high Priest was rejected, & a kingly government called for. For they rejected not the government of the high Priest, but of Samuel the judge: who was no high Priest, although he was a Prophet, neither was there ever any high Priest judge but only Eli.  
But if all supremacy be forbidden over the whole Church militant (saith M. Saunder) it is forbidden likewise, that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church. And this he proveth by a jolly rule of Logic. For the parts (according to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. O subtle reason by which I will likewise conclude, there may not be one schoolmaster for all the children of the world: therefore there may not be one schoolmaster for one town in all the world. There can not be one Physician for all the world: therefore there may not be a Physician for every city: yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world: therefore there may not be a Priest in every parish. Again he reasoneth thus: If a king be supreme head over his own Christian Realm. it must be by that power which he either had before his christianity or beside it. For by his christianity it is not possible, that he should have greater power than the Apostles had. I answer: the kings supremacy is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had. For although he have authority over Ecclesiastical persons, and in causes Ecclesiastical, according to God's word: yet is he no Ecclesiastical officer, but a civil Magistrate, having chief authority in all causes, not absolute to do what he will, but only what God commandeth him: namely to provide by laws, that God may be truly worshipped, and all offences against his religion may be punished. And whereas M. Saunder inferreth, that an Ethnic Prince or Turk may be supreme head of our Church, we utterly deny to any such the name of an head, which can not be a member, but even an Ethnic Prince or a Turk may be chief Magistrate over the faithful, and make laws for the maintenance of Christian religion, as an hypocrite Christian may. They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God. Nabuchadnezer, Darius, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, which were heathen Princes, made godly laws for the true worship of God & furtherance of his people: as in the prophecy of Daniel, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is manifest. S, Paul appealed to Nero the Emperor. Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a bishops election, and for a Bishop's house, were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperor. And this notwithstanding, the Church is always under the sovereign authority of Christ, and the spiritual government of her several pastors and teachers, when Christ ascending into heaven, ordained for her edification and unity, and not one Pope over all. Eph. 4. 13.  
But now he will enter one degree farther, and suppose, that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortal man to be, or as any Bishop and Priest is, yet he can neither baptise, consecrate, forgive sins, praise, excommunicate, bless, nor be judge of doctrine by his kingly authority. If he can do none of those: he can not be supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes. I deny this argument. For his supremacy is not to do those things, or any of them, but to provide and command, that they may be done as they ought to be. But he riseth up again and saith, that whosoever hath sovereign authority, either in civil matters or Ecclesiastical, he may in his own person execute any of those things, which any of his inferiors may do. So he saith, the king if he will, may be judge in Westminster hall, sheriff and constable, yea he may play the tailor, master Carpenter or tanner. It is marvel he saith not that he may be both a king and subject. Likewise the primate, (he might as well say the Pope) may help a Priest to Mass, carry the cross in procession, dig a grave, etc. I deny this rule to hold in all things. For there are some things, that the Prince may not do for lack of knowledge, and some things for lack of calling, and yet he may command both to be done. For controversies of law he may not decide, except he have knowledge of the law, nor minister Physic, except he have knowledge in physic, yet he may command both Lawyers & Physicians to do according to their knowledge, likewise to preach, baptise, etc. he may not, because he lacketh calling, for none may do those things lawfully, but he that hath a special calling, but he may command those things to be done, & to be well done, according to God's law, whereof he ought not to be ignorant, and for that purpose is especially commanded to study in the book of God's law, that not only in matters concerning his own person, but in matters concerning God's honour, he may cause all men to do their duty. Deut. 17. 18. So did David, Solomon, jehosaphat, Ezechias, josias, command the Priests to offer up the sacrifices and to do their duty, which it was not lawful for their kings to execute.  
And is it so strange a matter, that a popish king may not command his chaplain to say Mass, or to say his Mass reverently, and orderly as the laws of popery do require? if he may command over though e matters, which yet he may not do himself, let M. Saunder see how his rule holdeth, that whosoever hath authority in any matters, may do all things himself, which any of his inferiors may do, or which he may command to be done, whereupon he concludeth, that the king hath no right or supreme power at all in Ecclesiastical causes, (unless it be committed to him from the Bishop) so that a king if he be a Bishop's commissary, may do that by M. Sanders exception, which nether by commandment of God, nor his kingly power he hath authority to do.  
Another argument he bringeth as good as this, that the lesser authority doth not comprehend the greater, and therefore M Horn must answer him, whether to preach, baptise, forgive sins etc. be greater or lesser ministery than the kings authority. If it be greater: then it can not be comprehended in the kings authority, which is lesser. What that reverend father the Bishop of Winchester hath answered, it may be seen in his book against M. Feckenham. But to talk with you M. Saunder, what if I grant, that the Ecclesiastical ministry, is not comprehended in the kings authority? will you thereupon infer, that the kings authority is not to command the ministers of the Church in these matters, to do their duties according to the word of God? In deed you conclude so, but your argument is nought. For the king is God's Lieutenant, to see both the Church and the common wealth to be well ordered. And the same thing may be greater and lesser than another in divers respects. As in authority of commanding, the king is greater than the Physician: in knowledge & practice of physic, the king is less than the Physician. So in authority of commanding the prince is greater than the minister: but in authority of ministration he is less, and no inconvenience in the world, to the dignity of other estate or calling.  
The Bishop of Winchester's examples, M. Saunder saith are evil applied. For they only show what was done, and not what ought to have been done: and so for many circumstances are subject to much wrangling. 1. For either he was no good Prince which meddled with disposing of holy matters, 2. or in that deed he was not good. 3. or he did it by commission from a Prophet or an high Priest, 4. or he was deceived by flatterers, 5. or he was enforced by necessity. But all these quarrels notwithstanding, the examples of Scripture are so many, and so plain, that M. Sanders ●●angling can not obscure them. David a good Prince, did well in appointing the levites and Priests to their several offices, and forbidding the levites to carry the ark and the vessels thereof without any commission from Priest or Prophet, but only by the word of God, not deceived by flatterers, nor enforced by necessity, 1. Chron. 23. 25. Solomon did the like about the temple. He deposed Abiathar the high Priest, & set Zadoc in his room. 1. Reg. 2. 27. & 35. And such are the examples of all the godly kings of juda. which being commended in the Scripture, are not uncertain, deceitful, or unknown in their circumstances: but much more certain arguments for the authority of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, than this text which he citeth (Feed my sheep) to forbid them. But here he will ask whether a Christian king be Peter's sheep or no? I answer by propriety no but a sheep of Christ's as Peter is. Nevertheless, admit Peter to be a shepherd, and the king to be his sheep, what then? forsooth it is against the law of nature, for a sheep to rule his shepherd. I grant in those things in which the one is shepherd, and the other a sheep. But I ask of him, is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a shepherd? if he doubt, Esa. 44. 28. and jere. 23. 4. may resolve him, and is not Peter and Paul in this respect also sheep? If he deny it: let the Apostles speak for themselves: let every soul be subject, etc. Rom. 13. If now I should reason that it is against the law of nature, that the sheep should rule his shepherd: I am sure he would answer with making a diversity of respects. You may then see what a wise argument he hath made, that may be turned back on his own head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth, but that a King in some respect of ecclesiastical government may be above his own pastor, as in other respect he is under him.  
M. Saunder will go forward for all this, & putteth case that a Bishop should come to a Christian King, as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperor Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure, but the thing which the Emperor unlawfully required, he would not yield unto, what could the Emperor do to him? He could not excommunicate him. And if he imprisoned him or put him to death: he did but as Nero or the Turk might do. Therefore if the King be never so much Christened, he hath no power over the bishops soul. If it were possible for the Pope to require an unlawful thing: I might put the like case of his holiness. What if a Christian man should come to him etc. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christ: he might imprison him, as Annas did the Apostles: he might command him to be smitten as Pashur did jeremy, and Ananias Paul etc. Therefore if he were never so much a Pope, he hath no power over a Christian man's soul. Mark the pith of M. Sand. arguments.  
But if Auxentius the Heretic should have come to the Emperor, had the Emperor none authority to call a synod to inquire of his heresy, & he being found an heretic, to have condemned him therefore? In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius, and Donatus, and not as Nero with Peter and Paul. But Ambrose his authority is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem etc. If we call to mind either the process of holy Scriptures, or the ancient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause I say of faith, Bishops are wont to judge of Emperors, not Emperors of Bishops.  
And who saith the contrary, but that in causes of faith, the Emperor is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops, and not the Bishops of the Emperor? Or that the Prince hath absolute authority in matters of religion, to do what he will, when we say that in all things he mnst follow the direction of God's word, the knowledge whereof, especially in difficult matters, he is to receive of the Ministers of the Church, as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law, although he be bound to see justice executed.  
But M. Saunder will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop. I answer, if his crime be apparent, even as Solomon deposed Abiathar, if it be doubtful, by order of judgement and trial according, of civil judges, if it be a civil crime, and Ecclesiastical if it be heresy that he is accused of, if he can not be condemned upon just trial, he is to be absolved, if this will not satisfy the king, he hath no farther lawful authority by any supremacy, and if he proceed further, he exerciseth tyranny. And Augustine doth justly complain of the importunity of the Donatists, which when the cause had been decided by certain Bishops, deputed by the Emperor, they would never be satisfied, but still appealed to the Emperor, & accused the Bishops that were appointed their judges before the earthly king. M. Saunder urgeth that word vehemently, that he calleth Constantine an earthly king, and yet he is so blind, that he will not see, that the same earthly king, which assigned those Bishops to be judges, was still acknowledged of all parts, to be the supreme governor, Ep. 48.  
But omitting the words of men, he will prove the dig nitie of high Priests above faithful Princes, by the authority of God in the old Testament. levit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sin of every degree of men, according to their dignity. And first beginneth with the high Priest, next whom is the whole people, third the Prince, and last of all every private man. There is no doubt but the high Priest, as he was an image and figure of Christ, was chief in dignity. Although in other respects he was inferior to the Prince, as Aaron was to Moses, Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel, Abiathar and Zadoc to David and Solomon. The like is confessed of every minister of the Gospel, and therefore the authority of Philo and Theodoretus which he useth in this point, might have been spared. And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince. Abiathar in the temple, at the altar, in the holiest place, and sacrificing, was greater than Solomon, yet was he justly deposed by Solomon for his treason.  
Master Saunder chargeth us to affirm, that the evil life of a Bishop, taketh away his authority, which he denieth to be so, as long as the Church doth tolerate and permit them in their places, whereupon he concludeth, that though the Bishop of Rome have never so much abused his office, yet he can not lose his primacy. In deed the abuse of the man, taketh not away the authority of the office, but if the office be perverted from the right use, and degenerated into an heathenish tyranny, as the Bishop of Rome's place hath been many hundredth years, the name of a Bishop only and that scarcely remaining, we justly affirm that such dignity as that sea had by consent of men, it hath clean lost, by abuse of their authority.  
Moreover he saith, it hath no colour of truth, that we affirm the Pope to govern, not as a Pastor, but to bear a sovereignty, as Princes of the world, and that he will show by six differences, which he will consider in order.  
First no man succeed in that chair, by right of 
1.  inheritance. The like I may say of the german Emperor, therefore this is no difference.  
Secondly it is not obtained by right of battle, invasion 
2.  or otherwise, but by election. So is the Emperor at this day, only by election. And if Master Sanders be not to impudent, he will not deny, but there hath been bickering and intruding by force, into that chair, and that is worse entering, by simony, murder, treason and devilish sorcery.  
The third, nether child, nor woman, nor Infidel, 
3.  nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome. No more can any such be chosen Emperor by the golden bull and law of the election. And yet seeing boys are made Cardinals, which be electors of the Pope, and eligible, there is none impossibility, but a boy may be chosen Pope, as well as a woman hath been Pope, jone I mean. john the 23. was condemned in the council of Constans for an Infidel, which denied the immortality of the soul.  
The fourth, the election of the Bishop of Rome as of 
4.  all other Bishops, pertaineth only to Ecclesiastical persons, a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergy. To this I say, that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergy. And so is the Emperor chosen by as many Bishops as civil Princes, except in case of equality of voices. Nether is the clergy ever excluded in any lawful election of any king where he is made by election.  
The fift, to omit the Bishop of Rome's temporal dominion, 
5.  which he confesseth to be but accessary to his Bishopric, in his Ecclesiastical government, he useth not that force and power which worldly Princes do. He compelleth none, no not the Jews in Rome to baptism. No more doth the Emperor. But what means useth he to depose kings, & absolve their subjects from their oath of obedience, where he judgeth them for heretics, how maketh he wars and setteth all the world in an uproar, to defend his usurped dignity & false doctrine? Doth he not by force compel Christians to his filthy idolatry, or else cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them?  
The 6. the Bishop of Rome (as Bishop) never punisheth them with the material sword, which forsake his 
6.  Church, No, but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them, hangeth them, drowneth them, burneth them, not as a Bishop saith M. Saunder, but as a temporal Prince and Lord, as Moses being one of the Priests of our Lord was also master of civil government. Behold, this devisor of differences at length maketh him a civil Prince and temporal Lord, from whom he had laboured by so many differences to distinguish before. But now lest you should espy his impudent conclusion, he draweth into a new controversy, whether Moses were a Priest. And first he will prove that Moses was a Priest, by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is said, Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. If he will not allow the Hebrew word Cohanim to signify Princes, as it doth, in diverse other places, yet saith not the Psalm that Moses and Aaron were both Priests, but that among his Priests they were such as called upon his name, and were heard, and Samuel who followeth in the same verse, confessed now by Master Saunder to be a Levit, forgetting that before he made him high Priest. But farther to prove that Moses was a Priest, he citeth Augustine, jeronym, Gregor. Naz. Dionys. and Philo, but all to small purpose for his cause.  
It must needs be confessed, that Moses as all the patriarchs before him, in their families, was a Priest, before the distinction of the two offices was made, when Aaron and his posterity only were chosen ●to be Priests.  
After which time he was no longer a Priest, neither did he any thing as a Priest, but as a Prophet, and as a Prince. But admit, he were both a Prince and a Priest, yet he commanded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest. For Aaron was high Priest, and therefore could have no Priest above him. By which it is inferred, that the office of a Prince is to command the high Priest, and so was it always practised by all godly Princes. But Master Saunder returning to his last and least difference, affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome never condemneth any man for heresy or schism to corporal death in his own person, nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiastical persons. But who understandeth not this mockery? for as well it may be said, the King never hangeth any man in his own person, therefore none are executed by his authority, as the Pope never condemneth any to death in his own person, therefore he persuadeth not his religion with fire and sword. But will the Pope and the Bishop, that are so mild and gentle, suffer them whom they condemn for heresy to escape their hands, before they have delivered them to death? O cruel and shameless hypocrites.  
Nevertheless Master Saunder saith, they have power over men's souls by that which our Saviour said to Peter. To the I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. etc. which words are derived to the Bishop of Rome, by means of the chair of S. Peter. A strange kind of derivation never touched in the Scripture, to which words the said Bishop referreth all his power, where as worldly Princes appeal to the law of the Gospel nether in getting, nor governing, nor establishing their dominion and power. Mark well this English Anabaptist. Is not this the law of the Gospel?  
There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power. And is not this the law of the Gospel for their governing? that governors are sent of God for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1. Pet. 2. vers. 14.  
And for the establyshing of their dominion, is not this the law of the Gospel, give unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And again, we must be subject of necessity, not only for fear but even for conscience Rom. 13. verse. 5.  
As for the Pope's piety and lenity, wherewith he ruleth, when all the world seethe how proudly and tyrannical yhe behaveth himself, it were folly to spend many words about it. As for his gentle terms of sons and brethren, wherewith he saluteth Princes, and Bishops, and the servant of the servants of God, which he calleth himself: be simple and short cloaks to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny, wherewith he not only most shanefully revileth most Christian Princes, as it appeareth in that traitorous Bul, which came from him against our most gracious sovereign Lady, but also taketh upon him to depose them from their estate royal, usurping to him self the name of holiness, of head of the Church etc. of Christ, of God himself, and calleth Princes his vassals. etc. of which blasphemies his Cannon Laws are stuffed full. And therefore it is too far in the day, for M. Saunder to make us think there is no difference between white and black, Pride and Humility, Gentleness and Cruelty, Holiness and hypocrisy, faith and falsehood, vice and virtue.   

The third Chapter.  OF the diverse senses which are in the holy Scripture, and namely about these words (upon this Rock 
Saunder.  I will build my Church) and which is the most literal and proper sense of them. 
TO contend about the diversity of senses, it were 
Fulke.  to take up a new controversy. I admit that which Master Saunder confesseth, the lyter all sense only to be of force to convince the adversary. And the literal sense not to be always according to the grammatical sound of the words, but according to the most plain meaning of the speaker. As when Christ sayeth to Peter, ●o thee I will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he meaneth not material Keys of Iron, but authority in the Kingdom of Heaven, as Keys are delivered by the Master to his Stuard, but not as keys of a city are delivered, which betoken the giving of possession of that City to be governed by him which receiveth the Keys (as Master Saunder saith) For that was no part of Christ's meaning, to resign the government of his Church to Peter, for such giving of Keys is of the subjects to their Superior, but to make him one of the stewards of his great house, to open and shut, according to his appointment. Otherwise, only Christ hath the key of David, which openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth apocalypse 3. verse 7.  
Likewise when he saith: Thou art Peter, I confess and agree with Master Saunder, that the literal sense is not, thou art a natural stone, but thou art that toward my Church, which a stone is toward the house that is builded upon that stone. But so that Peter is not the only foundation, nor the Corner stone, which is only Christ, but one of the twelve stones of the foundation, as it may more plainly appear in the apocalypse the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse.  
Furthermore I confess, that what soever by necessary conclusion may be gathered, of any true literal sense, is of equal authority in the word of God, with that which is expressed in plain words. As the consubstantiality of Christ with God the Father, the blessed trinity, and such like, But whereas M. Sand. ioygneth to these, not only the perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary, which is not certainly, though probably to be gathered, but also transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and Purgatory, against which the sense of the scripture is manifest, I will not admit them for examples.  
But to come to his purpose, he findeth in the ancient Fathers, four diverse senses of these words (upon this Rock I will build my Church) whereof three he rejecteth, as unperfect which have ancient writers, as he confesseth for their Authors, the last he hath no ancient writer to defend.  
The first, that Christ is that Rock on whom the Church is builded, which Augustine holdeth.  
The second, that every Disciple of Christ is the rock, which is origen's opinion.  
The third, that Peter's faith or confeffion is the rock, which is Chrysostoms' judgement.  
The fourth, which is his own, and therefore he calleth it the perfect sense, is, that Peter concerning his office in God's Church, through the promise of Christ which is past, and the faithful confession of his Godhead, which is presently made, and the power of feeding his Sheep, which then was to come, is this Rock upon which the Church is built. here I wish the reader to note, that the Papist rejecteth three senses of three several ancient writers, and maketh the fourth himself, that you may see, with what equity they exclaim against us, if upon never so good ground, we depart from the interpretation of the ancient Fathers. But now let us see what reasons he hath to confute these three Doctors opinions as unsufficient interpretations.  
first he sayeth, If Augustine's sense were true, all the three other should be void, In deed his own sense, understanding Peter to be a singular Rock, more than the other Apostles is made void thereby, as it is false. But the other two may stand very well well with Augustine's meaning, for he meaneth not Christ barely, but Christ whom Peter and every true Disciple of Faith confesseth, to be the rock of the Church, Neither doth the word thou, hinder this sense. Seeing Augustine understandeth Peter to be a denominative a Petra, of the stone, nor the word, I will build, for notwithstanding he had begunn to build his Church before, yet he would build still, and that more magnifical than before.  
The sense of Origine he rejecteth, as not literal upon which I will not stand.  
The sense of Chrysostom he refuseth, saying, the Faith of Peter is not the only Rock, whereupon the Church shall be builded, for than it had been built upon the Faith of john baptist before this time. A pithy argument, as though there is any more than one Faith Ephesians 4. verse 5. which is the same in Peter and in john, and in all the other Apostles, the same I say in kind, not in number. Neither did Chrysostom mean, that the singular Faith of Peter were the Rock of the Church, but the same one Faith and confession embraced of every member thereof.  
That he sayeth I will build, whereas he had already begun to build, and did then presently build, What inconvenience is it but in a quarrelers mind. He speaketh of the Future tenses, to signify the great amplyfication of his Church which he would make by the preaching of the Apostles.  
But of all senses Master Saunder liketh his own best, asperfect and containing all the other therein. For first saith he, if Peter be the Rock, than Christ that made him is much more, as the giver and author of his power. But I deny that Christ did give the same that he is himself, that is, to be the only singular foundation, Rock, and corner stone of his Church.  
Secondly he saith, if Peter in respect of his confession be a Rock, than his confession is a Rock. But then say I, they that make the same confession are as much a Rock as he.  
thirdly he saith, if Peter being captain Disciple of all that ever were, be a Rock, than all other Disciples that are contained in him as in the chief, may also be this Rock. Who had thought Peter had been such an universal thing to contain all disciples in him? Doth not this contain manifest blasphemy? to make all Disciples contained in Peter, which are contained only in Christ, as the members in their mystirall body, whereof he, only is chief head, Sovereign, Captain, or what other name of superiority can be devised.  
But now that he hath made such a monstrous jumbling of three opinions in one, he is not ashamed to charge Master jewel, for leaving the most literal sense, and mingling three, opinions of these four in one, as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ, were the only or most literal sense. But seeing he wisheth Master jewel or any of us to discuss the meaning of Christ particularly with all circumstances, for my part considering all circumstances, I think the most simple and plain meaning of Christ is, that Peter it a Rock or stone, upon which the Church is builded, but none otherwise, than every one of the Apostles is, Ephe, 2. and 20. verse, and in the apocalypse the 21. chapter and 14. verse. Of which M. Saunder also confesseth every one to be a Rock in his kind.  
But now let us see the five circumstances, by which Master Saunder will prove Peter for to be such a Rock, as none of all the rest of the Apostles is but he.  
The first, Christ promised Simon before he confessed, that he should be called Peter, which was the first cause of being the Rock john I. Admit this to be a promise, & not an imposition of a name, in respect of the gifts of fortitude & constancy where with he would endue him, this proveth him not to be a singular rock.  
The second, he was named Peter before he confessed, which was the performance of the promise. Mark. 3. I doubt not but that he had confessed Christ before he was made an Apostle, although he had not made that solemn confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstance is a frivolous argument. And his brother Andrew which first brought him to Christ, confessed jesus to be the Messiah before Peter was come to Christ.  
The third, when he had confessed the godhead of Christ which was the fruit of the gift & of the promise, Christ pronounced him to be such a rock, whereupon he would build his church, which was the reward of his confession.  
But all the Apostles made the same confession, therefore the same reward was given to all, that they should every one be a rock or stone, on which the church should be builded.  
The fourth, Christ prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, which was the warrant of the perpetuity of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles joan. 17. the special prayer for Peter, was in respect of his greater weakness, when he was left to himself.  
The last, to show what strength Peter should give, to his brethren after his conversion, Christ bade him feed his lambs, whereby he was made such a rock, whereby he should stay up his church, by teaching & ruling the faithful, as whose voice the sheep should be bound to hear in pain of damnation. First I answer, that the strength or confirmation which he should give to his brethren, was not all one, with his feeding of the lambs, but was used to the strengthening of his weak brethren, the rest of the Apostles whom after his marvelous conversion, he did mightily confirm, though in his fall he was showed to be the weakest of all. Then I say, the feeding of the sheep of Christ, was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles, in which he had no prerogative of authority given, but an earnest charge, to show his greater love, by greater diligence in his office. So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock, than every one of the Apostles is.   

The fourth Chapter.  
diverse reasons are alleged to prove (chiefly by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture) that these 
Saunder.  words (thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church) have this literal meaning, upon thee o Peter, being first made a rock, to th'end thou shouldest stoutly confess the faith, and so confessing it, I will build my church: the promise to be caelled Peter, was the first cause. Why the church was built upon him, the Protestants can not tell: which is the first literal sense, of these words, upon this rock will I build my church.  
FIrst it is to be remembered, that M. Saunder in the chapter before, rejecting the interpretation of three of the 
Fulke.  greatest Doctors of the church, Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom, not only is bound in equity, to give us the same liberty which he taketh himself, but also to confess, that these three principal doctors, following other senses, than his, were ignorant of that which he & all other Papists, make to be the chief article of Christian faith, namely of the supremacy of Peter, when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rock whereupon Christ would build his church, and therefore would never have subscribed to his book, which he suiteth the rock of the church. But now to the argument of this chapter. Chrysostomis cited to prove, that, where Christ saith to Peter, thou art Simon the son of jona, thou shalt be called Cepha, which is by interpretation Peter, a new name is promised to Simon, in joan. Hom. 18. Honorifice etc. Christ doth forespeak honourably of him. For the certain foretelling of things to come, is the work only of the immortal God. It is to be noted, that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all things which should come to pass afterward to him. For he did not call him Peter, neither did he say, upon this rock will I build my church. But he said, thou shalt be called Cephas. For that was both of more power, and also of more authority. There is nothing in this sentence, but that we may willingly admit, Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelve foundations of the church, as he was afterward. And that Chrysostom judged no singular thing to be granted, by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter, appeareth, by his words in evang. joann. Praef. Where he apply the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus, columna omnium quae in orb sunt ceclesiarum, qui caeli claves habet. For the son of thunder is most beloved of Christ, being a pillar of all the churches which are in the world, which hath the keys of heaven. Neither doth Cyrillus, whom he citeth, make any thing for his purpose. In joan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon etc. And he telleth afore hand that his name shallbe Peter and not now Simon: by the very word signifying, that he would build his church on him as on a rock and most sure stone. These are the words of Cyrillus, but that he meaneth not his person, but his faith, he showeth manifestly in his book de Trinit. lib. 4. speaking upon the text of Math. 16. the ground of M. Sanders book. Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud, quam inconcussam & firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavit, in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata & fundata esset, ut non laberetur. I think he called a rock, by denomination nothing else but the most unmovable and steadfast faith of that disciple, on which the church of Christ should be so established and founded, that it should not fall. Here is an other principal Doctor joining with Chrysostom, against M. Saunder, who affirmeth, that the rock is nothing else, but Peter's faith. After these he nameth. Theophylact and Euthymius two late writers, but he citeth nothing out of them presently. But after showing the force of God's promise to be effectual, to work all means necessary for the performance of it, he citeth out of Euthymius in Luc 6. that it was like, that in joh. 1. Christ promised that Simon should be called Peter, & in Luk. 6 called him Peter. All this needed not, we doubt not but Simon was called Peter. Yea but Cyrillus saith in joan. lib. 12. cap. 64. that he being Prince and head, first cried out saying, thou art Christ the son etc. Therefore he was head before his confession, by promise and name. I will not here say, how contrary M. Saunder is to himself, which in the cap. 3. said, that his supremacy was granted to him as a reward of his confession. But I will answer Cyrillus by himself, in joan. lib. 4. cap. 28 that Peter was Ordine maior, superior in order, to avoid confusion, not in degee, dignity or authority. And whereas M. Saunder urgeth so vehemently, that the name of Peter was not given for his confession, but was singular to him by promise, so that it belonged literally to no Prophet, Apostle nor disciple but only to him, & his successors, it is a most fond & frivolous matter, for the name of Bonarges, was specially given to the sons of Zebedee, in respect of their excellent gifts, and at the same time that the name of Peter was given to Simon, which secing it pertaineth not to their successors, which have not the same gifts, no more doth the name & dignity of Peter pertain to any that sit in his chair, if ever he had any fixed chair among the Gentiles, which by God's ordinance, was appointed to be the principal Apostle of the jews. Moreover where he laboureth tooth & nailc, to prove, that these words (upon this rock I will build my church) are to be referred to Peter, as I said before, I will grant even as much. But that Peter by these words, was made a singular rock more than all the Apostles, upon which the whole church is builded, I utterly deny, neither shall he be ever able to prove it. For it is an impudent lie, that only Peter at this time, had this high revelation, to acknowledge Christ to be the son of God. For he answered in the name of all the rest, who believed the same which he in their name confessed. Did not Andrew before Peter acknowledge him to be the Messiah? Did not Nathaniel which was none of the Apostles, acknowledge him to be the son of God and the King of Israel. joan. 1. 49.  
But he reasoneth substantially, when he saith thou only art the rock, because thou alone hadst this name etc. promised, thou alone hadst it given, thou alone didst confess me & to thee alone I say thou art Peter. As though a man may not have a name, whose signification is common to many. Solomon alone was promised to be called and was called jedidiah, that is the beloved of God, shall we therefore reason that Solomon only was beloved of God, as for that he only confessed, I have showed before, that it is false, for Christ saying, thou art Peter, meaneth not to say thou only art a rock, but thou well answerest thy name, which signifieth a rock or stone, and I will in deed use thee as a rock or stone, to build my church upon, yet not meaning the person, but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship.  
But now hath M. Saunder no less than 21. reasons, to prove that Peter is the rock, here spoken of, which although they may for the most part be easily avoided, yet I will grant that Peter is one of the twelve stones, whereupon the church is builded, but not the only stone.  
Therefore his first four arguments, I deny 1. Simon is alone promised to be called Peter, 2. he alone is called Peter, 3. Christ speaketh to him alone, saying. And I say to thee etc. 4. Christ saith of him alone, thou art Peter, therefore Simon alone is the rock of the church, let him prove the consequence if he can. The next 5. which prove that these words are to be referred to Peter, although that they be not very strong, yet I grant the words may be aptly referred to Peter, the reasons are 1. upon the pronoun. The 2 the word rock of which Peter is named, 3. the conference of them together, 4. the word I will build, 5. the word my church.  
The 10, Argument I deny, that Christ. (by saying to Peter, Feed my Lambs, feed my sheep) made him the head stone of God's militant Church next unto Christ.  
The eleventh, that Peter is showed to be the Rock spoken of, by giving of the Keys, I confess: ebut seeing the keys are given to all the Apostles, this proveth Peter to be none otherwise a Rock, than every one of them, That john received the Keys I showed even now out of Chysostome.  
The twelfth, that the property of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests, agreeth with Peter, I grant and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles, for whom Christ prayed as he did for Peter, who also strengthened and confirmed their brethren as Peter did.  
The 13. I confess that hell gates shall not prevail against the Church, nor against any member thereof, which is a small reason to make Peter supreme head thereof.  
The 14. which is the authorities of those doctors that teach Peter to be the rock whom he nameth when he citeth their sayings, or quoteth their places, I will severally consider.  
The 15. their reason also when I see them, to derive Peter's authority to his successors, I will weigh likewise.  
The 16. the practice of 1500. years I deny.  
The 17. I deny that all general councils, or any general council for 600. years after Christ, acknowledged Peter to be the rock in that sense, the Papists do now.  
The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rock, yet it is none inconvenience, that the church should be builded thereon, which began to be builded on the same confession offered by john Baptist.  
The 19 though you confound the diverse senses given by the fathers in your fourth sense, yet that proveth not your sense to be true.  
The 20. seeing the Apostles are certain foundations and rocks upon which the church is builded, I confess that Peter must needs be one, but that he was the most principal rock in respect of his name Peter, which is a stone, I say it followeth no more than that Solomon was best of all men beloved of God, because of that name jedidiah, which signifieth beloved of God.  
The 21. that all the Protestants do not agree in the interpretation of these words (upon this rock I will build my church) it proveth not your exposition, to be true, for neither do all the old Doctors, nor yet the new Papists agree in one, & the same interpretation of this text. And oftentimes it may invincibly be proved, that an heresy hath no ground out of such a text of Scripture, although the true and natural sense thereof can not be found at all.   

The fift Chapter.  IT is proved out of the ancient fathers, that S. Peter is this 
Saunder.  rock, whereupon the church was promised to be builded, otherwise then M. jewel affirmeth. 
THat Peter was a rock or stone, upon which the 
Fulke.  church was builded, is granted of us, but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be builded upon, we deny, and M. jewel rightly affirmeth, that the old Catholic fathers have written and pronounced not any mortal man as Peter was, but Christ himself the son of God, to be this rock, whereon that whole church is builded. But M. Saunder will prove (if he can) out of the old writers, that not only Christ is the chief rock, but Peter also is an other rock, so that the church by his doctrine, is builded upon two rocks, and this he will show, 1. by their words, 2. their reasons, 3. & by the same places which M. jewel allegeth for the contrary opinion.  
The decretal epistles of Anacletus, Pius, Fabianus, etc. which in his own conscience he knoweth to be forged, he omitteth, and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip. advers. haeres. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicandae ecclesiae Petram dictum? Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rock of the church which was to be builded? This is granted that he was a rock or stone, whereon the church is builded, and the same Tertullian in his book de pudicitia saith, of this whole text, that this was conferred to Peter Personally, and pertaineth to none other, but such as he was, namely an Apostle or Prophet.  
Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conveniet, aut Apostolo aut Prophetae. For according to the person of Peter, this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet. Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome?  
But Hippolytus saith: Princeps Petrus, fideipetra. Peter is chief, a rock of faith. He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rock whereon faith is builded.  
Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud etc. That great foundation and most sound rock, whereupon Christ hath builded his church. But let Origenes expound himself in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super unum illum Petrum arbitraris universam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo, quid dicis de jacobo & joanne filus tonitrui, velde singulis Apostolis? Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est. Tues Petrus & super hanepetram edifi●abo ecclesiam meam, & pertae inferorum non praeualeb●nt ei: tamen omnibus Apostolis & omnibus quibus q, perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur, quoniam omnes sunt Petrus & petrae, & in omnibus aedificata est ecclesia Christi, & adversus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt, portae prevalent inferorum. But if thou think the whole church is builded by God upon that one man Peter, what sayest thou of james and john, the sons of thunder, or of every one of the Apostles? Therefore it was in deed truly said unto Peter. Thou art Peter & upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, yet it seemeth that it was spoken also to all the Apostles, and to all the perfect faithful because they are all Peter and stones, and on them all, the church of Christ is builded, and against none of them which are such, the gates of hell shall prevail. By this you see how Origen is none of his, how so ever he abuse his name.  
Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. & lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded upon Peter. Which we confess as upon one of the foundation stones, but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum saith. Hoc erant utique & caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscinur, ut ecclesia una monstretur. The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and authority, but the beginning proceedeth from one, that the church might be showed to be one. This speaketh Cyprian upon the very text now in discussing.  
Consequently he citeth Hilary lib 6. de trinit. Petrus etc. Peter lieth under the building of the church and in ca Math. 16. O in nuncupatione etc. O happy foundation of the church in having the new name pronounced, and o rock worthy of the building of that church, which should dissolve the laws of hell. But the same Hilary sayeth of Christ, de trinit. lib. 2. una haec est foelix fidei petra, Petri ore confessa, tu es filius Dei vivi. This is that only happy rock of faith, confessed by the mouth of Peter, thou art the son of the living God. And again, lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est. Upon this rock of confession is the building of the church. And again. Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est, per hanc fidem infirmae adversus eam sunt portae inferorum. Haec fides regni caelestis habet claves etc. This faith is the foundation of the church, by this faith the gates of hell are of no force against it. This faith hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc. Therefore not the person of Peter is the rock, for all the church to be built upon.  
S. Ambrose hath the next place, whom he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo etc. If Peter then be a rock upon which the church is builded, he doth well to heal first the feet, that even as he doth contain the foundation of faith in the church, so in the man he may confirm the foundation of his members.  
Of the authority of this Sermon I will not dispute, it shall suffice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. saith. Quod Petro dicitur, Apost●lis di●itur, non p●testatem usurpamus, sed serui●●s ●mperio. That which is said to Peter, is said to the Apostles, we usurp not power, but we serve under commandment. By this saying of Ambrose, Peter is so a rock and foundation, as the other Apostles are, & not a rock to bear all the building himself.  
S. Basil is alleged in Concede paenit. Petrus petra est etc. Peter is a rock through Christ the rock. For jesus giveth his own dignities, he is a rock and maketh a rock. This proveth not Peter to be the only rock of the militant church, as M. Saunder would make him.  
After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math. AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te, I will build my church upon thee. Behold saith M. Saunder the church promised to be built upon a mortal man. If he say true, Christ saith in vain that flesh and blood made him not Peter. But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there given, to Peter, to pertain to every Bishop and Priest, as much as to Peter. And contra joninian lib. 1. he writeth. At dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostol●s fiat, & cuncti ●laues regni cael●rum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo s●lidetur: tamen propterea inter du●decim unus eligitur ut capite constituto seisinatis tollatur occasio: But thou sayest the church is founded upon Peter, although in an other place the same is done upon all ●●●● Apostles, & they all received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, & the strength of the church is grounded equally upon them, yet for this cause, one is chosen among the twelve, that the head being appointed, occasion of division might be taken away. You see now that Peter is no more a rock or foundation, than the rest, neither hath any more authority of the keys than the rest, although by his judgement, he was chosen to be the chief or first in order to avoid strife, not in dignity or authority. Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps etc. Peter Prince of the Apostles, upon whom Christ sounded the church, a very immovable rock and a strong confession. M. Saunder would have us note, that Peter is called confession, that when he saith the church is builded upon faith & confession, we might understand no man's saith and confession, but peter's. As though all the Apostles had not the same faith & made not the same confession. But notwithstanding that Chrysostom doth often acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles, yet he willeth us, to consider that his principality was not of authority but of order. jam & ill●d considera, quàm & Petrus agit omma excommuni dis●ipulorum sententi●, nihil auctoritate sua, nihil cum imperio. Now also consider this, how even Peter doth all things by the common decree of the disciples, nothing by his own authority, nothing by commandment. Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paul was equal in honour with Peter, but also that all the rest were of equal dignity. jamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit, nec se reliquis illis, sed ipsi summo comparat, declarans quod herum unusquis q, parem sortitus sit dignitatem. And now Paul showeth himself equal in honour with the rest, neither doth he compare himself with the rest, but even with the highest himself, declaring that every one of them hath obtained equal dignity. Now followeth, Epiphanius in Anchor. Ipse dominus etc. The Lord himself did constitute him chief of the Apostles, a sure rock upon which the church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: now the gates of hell are heresies and authors of heresies, for by all means faith in him was established which received the key of heaven. That Peter was chief of the Apostles in order, we strive not, that he was a sure rock we grant, but that he alone was the rock of the church we deny. The same Epiphanius acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with every Bishop, and no better, and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to julius Bishop of Rome, he giveth this superscription. Beatissimo comministro julio, Marcellus in Domino gaudium. To his most blessed fellow minister julius, Marcellus wisheth joy in the Lord.  
The place of Cyrillus which followeth, I have set down, and answered in the chapter before.  
After him Theodoretus allegeth Psellus. In Petro etc. In Peter the prince of the Apostles, our Lord in the Gospels hath promised that he will build his Church. Damasc●n and Euthymius later writers are alleged to the like effect, all which prove nothing but that Peter is a rock, which we confess as every one of the Apostles is.  
Then followeth Augustine in his retractations, which leaveth it to the choice of the reader, whether he will understand Peter figuring the person of the Church, to be the rock spoken of by Christ, or Christ whom he confessed. But that Peter as Bishop of Rome, should be the rock he saith nothing. Again leaving it to the reader's choice, he showeth he had no such persuasion of the rock of the Church, as M. Saunder teacheth.  
After him Prosper Aquitanicus, & Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome, say nothing but that Peter was a rock, which we grant without controversy.  
Last of all the council of Chalcedon is cited. Act. 3.  
Petrus Apostolus est petra & crepido Ecclesiae. Peter the Apostle is a rock and a shore of the Church, which M. Saunder translateth the top of the Church. In deed the legates of the Bishop of Rome uttered such words, which may be well understood as all the rest of the fathers, that Peter was one of the twelve foundations of the Church. But that the council acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to have such authority as is pretended, appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon council, where notwithstanding the B. of Rome's Legates reclaimed, & Leo himself refused to consent, yet by the whole council it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should have equal authority with the Archbishop of Rome in the East, only the title of priority or seniority reserved to the Bishop of Rome.  
To conclude, M, jewel said truly, for all M. Sanders vain & childishinsulting & impudent railing, that no mortal man, but Christ only is the rock & foundation of the Church, albeit that Peter & all the Apostles in respect of their office, & doctrine, were foundation stones whereon the Church was builded, jesus Christ being the corner stone and only one general foundation.   

The sixth chapter.  THe diverse reasons which the fathers bring to declare why 
Saunder.  S. Peter was this rock, do evidently show that he was most literally this rock, whereupon Christ would build his Church. How Peter beareth the person of the Church. 
THat he was a stone or rock, whereon the Church is 
Fulke  builded, hath been often granted, but that he only was such a stone is still denied. First Basil adversus Euno. lib. 2. is cited, with his reason Petrus etc. Peter received the building of the Church upon himself, for the excellency of his faith. I answer, so did the other Apostles for the excellency of their faith, for continuance whereof, Christ prayed as well as for Peter's faith. john. 17.  
The 2. Hilary de trinit. lib. 6. saith Supereminentem etc. Peter by confession of his blessed faith, deserved an exceeding glory. And so did the rest of the Apostles by their confession of their blessed faith, obtain an exceeding or passing glory, ultra humanae infirmitatis modum, beyond the measure of man's infirmity, which words also Hilary hath, left you should think he preferreth Peter in authority before the other Apostles. For Peter's faith & confession he did before interpret to be the rock of the Church, which because it was common to all the Apostles, he maketh their authority equal. Vos o sancti & beati viri, ob sidei vestrae merituns claves regni caelorum sortiti, & ligandi aique soluendi in caelo & in terra ius adepti. O you holy and blessed men, which for the worthiness of your faith have obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and have attained to authority to bind and loose in heaven and in earth. And if you urge that Peter spoke, when all the rest held their peace: yet is that primacy but of order, not of authority for they all believed as Peter confessed, and Peter confessed in the name of all the rest.  
The 3. Cyprian ad jubaianum: Ecclesia quae est una etc. The Church which is one, is founded by our lords voice, upon one which hath received the keys of it. This reason (saith he) can bear but one such rock, for if there were more rocks at once, there should be more churches But it is reason, that Cyprian should expound himself, which by founding meaneth the beginning of the foundation, as he saith, de simplicitate pr elat. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum etc. The Lord speaketh to Peter. I say to thee (saith he) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And to the same after his resurrection, he saith: Feed my sheep. And although he giveth to all his Apostles after his resurrection equal power, and saith, as my father hath sent me, so also do I send you, receive the holy Ghost. Whose sins you forgive they shall be forgiven, and whose sins you retain they shall be retained: yet that he might show the unity, by his authority, he disposed the beginning of the same unity, beginning at one. For verily the rest of the Apostles, were even the same thing that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and of power: but the beginning proceedeth from unity, that the Church might be showed to be one. Thus far Cyprian. By which we see that there is but one beginning, yet all the Apostles are equal. This unity of beginning of building, Tertullian also lib. de pudic. showeth to have been in Peter, when he was the first that preached after the ascension of Christ.  
The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus, Dominus etc. Our Lord hath commended unity in Peter himself: there were many Apostles, and it is say d● to one, feed my sheep. Here he will have Peter to represent Christ, the only good shepherd: although the words import no such thing, but only a mystery of unity, which is but frivolously gathered by the author of that book, or homely, untruly ascubed to S. Augustine: where yet he will not have Peter to be the head, but to bear a figure of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Whereupon his words follow soon after. Na n & ipsum Petrum cui commendavit oves suas, quasi alter alteri unum se●um facere volebat, ut sic ei oves commendaret, ut esset ille caput, ille figuram corporis portaret, id est Ecclesiae, & tanquam s●onsus & sponsa essent duo in carne una. For he would make even Peter to whom he commended his sheep, as one to another, one with himself, that he might so commend his sheep to him, that he himself might be the head, and Peter might bear the figure of his body, that is, of his Church, and so they might be as the bridegroom & his spouse, two in one flesh. These words show how vain M. Sanders collection is for Peter's headship, beside that he citeth the words otherwise then they are in the author, even as his note book served him.  
The 5. reason is uttered by Jerome adversus iovinianum lib. 1. answering the objection of jovinian, and intending to prove that john the virgin was as excellent as Peter the married man. At dicis, etc. But thou sayest, the Church is built upon Peter: Albeit the self same thing in another place, be done upon all the Apostles, & all do receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church be grounded equally upon them, yet therefore one is chosen among twelve, that a head being made, the occasion of schism may be taken away. Here he would have three things to be noted. First that the Church is so built upon Peter the rock, that in the same place where it is built upon Peter, the like is not done upon the other Apostles. But seeing he himself before urged the future tense, I will build, this collection is false. Christ promiseth that he will build his Church upon Peter, but when he buildeth, he useth all the Apostles as well as Peter.  
Secondly that the church is equally built upon all the Apostles, therefore not more on Peter then on the rest.  
Thirdly that one is chosen head to avoid schism.  
But if all be equal, he asketh how one may be head? I answer, even as the foreman of the jury in some respects is chief, and yet they are all equal. But he answereth they are equal in authority, as Apostles, but not as Bishops. But seeing the office of every Apostle is above the office of every Bishop, it will follow, that every Apostle as Apostle, is above Peter as Bishop of Rome, which were a perilous matter for Master Saunder to admit. Howbeit concerning this distinction of his, more is to be said in a more proper place. In the mean time, he urgeth, that Peter was chosen of Christ to be head, to avoid strife and schism, which reason seeing it holdeth always, there ought always one head to be chosen, to be a head and perpetual rock, by succession. I answer the reason of avoiding schisms, may gain so much, that in every Church, such as the first of the Apostles was, such an head for such purpose may be chosen, but it will not enforce one head being a mortal man, over all the Church, which no one man can keep in unity, and how convenient the headship of the Romish Church is to avoid schisms, let so many schisms as have been made even for the attaining of the same headship, bear witness. Whereof one continued 39 years.  
As for Leo Bishop of Rome, it is well known, he was too much addict to maintain the dignity of his Sea, and yet he was far from the tyranny which the later bishops usurped and practised under pretence of Peter's supremacy. His words ate cited in Ann. ass. ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum etc. Upon this stone, this soundness and strength, I will build an everlasting temple, and the height of my Church, which is to reach to Heaven, shall rise in the strength of this Rock. A great extolling of Peter, usual to the Bishops of Rome, but yet no more is said of him then may be truly said upon every one of the Apostles.  
The 6. reason is uttered by Augustine. Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram. etc. Our Lord said to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church. upon this rock I will build my church. And again in joan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae etc. Peter the Apostle by a generality that was figured, did bear the person of the Church, by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship. here he maketh much ado about his primacy, by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church, willing to infer that because he was primate of the Apostles, and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church, therefore he was sovereign ruler and general officer of the whole militant Church. But it followeth not, that every one which is made an attorney or Proxei to receive a thing for a whole commonalty, is thereby made general ruler of all that commonalty.  
The Papists themselves in the Council of basil discharge us of this conclusion, where they agree to the sentence of john Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witness that Peter received the Keys as minister of the Church.  And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus, Huic enim ecclesie clavis regni caelorum datae sunt. Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes di●itur, A●nas me, Pasce oves meas. For not without cause among all the Apostles, Peter sustaineth the person of this Catholic Church. For to this Church the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven are given. And when it is said unto him, it is said to all. Dost thou love me? feed my sheep. 
By this sentence it is plain, that Christ after Augustine's mind, preferred not Peter in power before all the rest, but to receive equal power with the rest, he made him as it were the Attornye of the rest. So that all these reasons duly considered, the sayings of the Doctors which affirm Peter to be a rock or stone, on which the Church is builded, do not prove that he was an only foundation of the whole Church, but with the rest of the apostles, he was one and the first of the twelve stones, whereon the Church was founded, and that in respect of his office and doctrine, not of his person, as he wasa mortal man.   

The seventh Chapter.  THE authorities alleged by M. Iowell, to prove that 
Saunder.  Peter was not this Rock, prove against himself that Peter was this Rock, although they prove that there was an other kind of Rock also beside him, which thing we deny not. 
THE first authority is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc. vet. test. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
Fulke.  build my church. He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had said before: Thou art Christ the son of the living God. M. S. replieth that it is neither said, that Peter was not this Rock: nor that Christ was this rock. But that the confession of Peter was the Rock, which he granteth, and therefore Peter much rather must be the rock. For his confession which cometh from his soul and heart, as from a fountain or springe, is greater than the act of confession. first I deny his Argument: because Peter's confession came neither from his soul nor heart, but from God, which revealed the truth unto him, as Christ saith. Flesh and blood etc. Secondly I say, Gregory meaneth by Peter's confession, him which Peter confessed, namely Christ which is the only Rock of the Church, whereon the whole Church is builded, as his words do sound, for he had said before: Thou art Christ etc.  
But M. Saunder reasoning like a learned Clerk, findeth fault with M. jewels argument, comparing it to this: There cometh eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent: Peter's confession is the Rock, therefore Peter is not the Rock. Would a man think that a Doctor in divitie, should either be so ignorant in the Art of reasoning, or so impudent in perverting a good reason, that a very Child might reprove, either the one or the other? I appeal to Logicians, whether this reason of M. jewels: The Rock cometh from Peter by confession, Ergo, Peter is not the Rock: be like this argument Eloquence cometh from Cicero, therefore Cicero is not Eloquence, and not as M. Sand. inferreth: Ergo, Cicero is not Eloquent. But he hath another Example. A man's Oration is eloquent. therefore the man himself is eloquent: So Peter's confession is the Rock, therefore Peter h●●selfe is the Rock. I deny the resemblance, for there is resembled the adjective in the one, and the substantive in the other. But thus he should compare them, Tuilyes defence of Mylo is an eloquent oration: therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration, which reasoning is no more absurd, than this of M. Sand. Peter's confession is the Rock, therefore Peter is the Rock. Contrariwise you may reason: Peter's confession was the Rock, therefore Peter was Rockey or stony.  
The second authority is Hilary. Haec una est etc. This is that only blessed rock of Faith that Peter confessed with his mouth. M. Saunder caveleth, that this is not spoken upon the words said to Peter, but vp●on the words spoken by Peter. But beside that the whole context of the place is against him, both in that, lib. 2. De trinit. and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifi●ato est, upon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church, which M. Sand. would avoid by bringing in of two rocks, Christ & Peter: the particle exclusive shutteth him clean out of the doors, for Hilary saith not, that Christ is a Rock, but that he is the only Rock. Therefore this is but one Rock and one building, and not as M. Sand. saith two Rocks and two buildings, for aswell he might say two Churches. Now where Hilary upon Matthew acknowledgeth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church, it is answered before, that he was one of the xii. foundations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a far other meaning than Christ is the only Rock.  
The 3. authority is, Cyrillus Dial, 4. de trini. The rock is nothing else, but the strong & assured faith of the disciple. This saith M. S. is that I would have, for this disciple was S. Peter, and the rock here spoken of is nothing else, but S. Peter's faith, therefore it is not Christ. Nay rather the rock is nothing but S. Peter's faith, therefore it is not his person & so no mortal man. For those words, nothing but Peter's faith, do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation unto Christ, but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortal man, because flesh & blood revealed not this confession unto him, but the Heavenly father.  
The 4. authority is Chrysostom. Upon this Rock, that is, upon this faith and this confession I will build my church. M. San. saith, he that believed & confessed was Peter and not Christ, ergo the rock is Peter & not Christ. Although this argument have no consequence in the world, yet to admit that it doth follow, I will reply thus, but he that believed and confessed was not Peter only, therefore Peter only was not this rock.  
The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom. Christ was the rock upon which foundation Peter himself was also built. M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built upon anonother, as Peter upon Christ? yes verily, but Peter none otherwise then the rest of the Apostles, who were all foundation stones, laid upon the great corner stone or only foundation Rock jesus Christ.  
S. Augustine again addeth in Christ's person. I will not build myself upon thee, but I will build thee upon me. M San. following the allegory of building confesseth that Christ is the first & greatest stone, upon which by all proportion, the second stone that should be laid, must be greatest that can be gotten next the first. If this be so, it is marvel the Angel which showed unto john the building of the heavenly jerusalem, showed him not this second stone by itself, but the xij. stones lying equally one by an other upon the main foundation. Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. uttereth nothing but the visions of his own head.  
The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat. He is ●●●● rock whosoever is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththiss sense as not literal, & seeing Peter is a disciple, & the first, he will prove Peter next to christ, to be the chief rock. In deed according to this sense it must needs be, that Peter is one principal rock, among so many thousand rocks, but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apostles, it is a sorry reason to make him so to excel, that he is one rock that beareth all the rest. But M. jewel is frantic in M. San opinion, that denying any mortal man to be this rock, now proveth every mortal man that is Christ's disciple to be this Rock. Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick, that cannot understand this reason, every Christian is such a rock as Peter was, therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or head of the universal church. Origines proceedeth, upon such a rock all ecclesiastical learning is built. But S. Peter is such a Rock, (saith Master Saunder) ergo upon him all ecclesiastical learning is built. Who would wish such an adversary as M. jewel is, who proveth altogether against himself? Nay who can bear such an impudent caveler that findeth a knot in a rush; For your conclusion is granted (M. Sand. that all ecclesiastical learning is built upon S. Peter, but so it is built upon every true Disciple of Christ by origen's judgement.  
Again Origine saith: If thou think that the whole Church is built only upon Peter, what then wilt thou say of john the son of thunder, and of every of the Apostles? First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for leaving out in English this word Illum, so that he should have said, upon that Peter, whereby he accuseth him to deny, that Peter is a Rock, which is an impudent lie. Secondly when this authority doth utterly overthrow his whole building of the popish rock, he can say nothing, but that john was a mortal man, and so were all the Apostles aswell as Peter, therefore M. jewel said not truly, that the old sathers have written, not any mortal man, but Christ himself to be this Rock, when john and all the Apostles be rocks. As though there were no difference between the only foundation and rock of the whole Church, which is Christ, & all the other stones that are built upon it.  
Last of all Origen saith: Shall we dare to say, that the gates of hell shall not prevail only against Peter? or are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given only to Peter? M. Saunder answereth, It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all prevail against Peter, he hath chief the keys of heaven. But what reason hath he for this impudent assertion? Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church. Admit this were true, as it can never be proved, that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ: yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gained. if the sentence as Origen expounded it, pertaineth to every faithful disciple: What advantage M. Saunder hath taken of the Bishop's allegations, let the reader's judge.   

The eight chapter.  THe conclusion of the former discourse, and the order of the other which followeth. 
Saunder.  
THe conclusion consisteth of 7. points. In the first 
Fulke.  he repeateth what he would have men think, he hath gained in his former discourse concerning Peter to be the Rock of the Church where on it is built.  
In the second for continuance of the building promised, there must be always some mortal man, which being made the same Rock by election, and afterward by revelation, should make the same confession, whensoever he is demanded, or consulted in matters of Religion. If this were true there were no necessity of the holy Scriptures, neither yet of Synods and Councils, if one Pope were able to resolve all the demands moved by all men of the world.  
In the third he sayeth, if there must be some such one Rock, it is not possible it should be any other but the Bishop of Rome: First, because he alone hath been the first and chief in all assemblies. Secondly, he only sitteth in Peter's Chair. Thirdly, and the consent of the world hath taken him so, ever indeed, but by the adversaries confession above a thousand years. But God be thanked, the Church hath no need of any such Rock, neither is any such taught. Ephe. the fourth, where the order of the building thereof, and of all necessary builders of Faith and doctrine are fully set forth. And the three reasons are all false, in manner and form as they are universally set down, as in their proper places shallbe showed.  
In the the fourth he glorieth, that he hath chosen to prove that point which of all other is most hard. That all the Apostles were not the same thing that Peter was. And first he will ask in what Gpspell or holy Scripture it is written, that every other Apostle was the same Rock, which Saint matthew testifieth Saint Peter to have been. I answer, not only by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture, which he himself acknowledgeth to be the literal sense, as well as that which followeth the sound of words, it is proved, but also in plain words of Saint Paul Ephe. the second, verse. 20. Where the Church is builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the head corner stone. And Apo. 21 verse. 14. Where the twelve precious stones, the foundations of the wall of the City, had on them the names of the xij. Apostles of the Lamb.  
The 5. is either thus or nothing at all, for it is not noted in him as the other be. If Cyprian or Jerome were alleged for this equality, it were sufficient for him to say, they were no Evangelists. For he showeth it written: thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter. You see these men that brag of the Doctors, will be holden by them, as long as they list.  
The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholics side, he lamenteth the unhappiness of these days, in which men altogether unlearned in them, by the bare naming of God's word, have among peddlers won their spurs, and among the ignorant have gotten the opinion of knowledge. As truly as none but Pedles and ignorant men embrace this doctrine which we teach, so truly all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side. Among so many Princes, noble men, and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the truth: M. Sanders head was very sleepy, when he could see none, but peddlers and ignorant persons.  
The seventh he will take upon him to show, by what means Saint Peter excelled the other Apostles, and showeth in what order he will proceed, which seeing it is contained word for word in the titles of the seven Chapters next following, I though it needless here to rehearse.   

The ninth Chapter.  THat Saint Peter passeth far the other Aposlles in 
Saunder.  some kind of ecclesiastical dignity. 
THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes, peradventure more than some of the Apostles, that he had great dignity among the Apostles, may easily be granted, but that he had authority over them, such as the Pope claimeth over all Bishops, is of us utterly denied.  
Neitherd oeth any one, nor all together, of M. Sanders 34. arguments, prove that he had one jot of authority over his brethren.  
1 He was first in order of numbering of the twelve Apostles.  
2 He was promised to be called Cephas, before the twelve were chosen.  
3. He was named Peter at the time of the choice, ergo he had the Pope's authority over them. Who would grant the consequence of these arguments? Let us see what the other be.  
4 It was said to him alone, thou art Peter, & upon this rock I will build my Church. I deny that it was said to him alone, for all the Apostles were likewise rocks, upon which he would build his Church. The like I say of the 5. that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were promised to him alone, for every one of the Apostles received them aswell as he, being ordained with equal power of binding & losing, of remitting & retaining sins. Mat. 18. 18, joan. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the words at one time were spoken to Peter alone, yet did they give him no singular authority.  
The 6 Christ paid tribute for Peter, as under head of his family. ergo he was greater than the rest, A fond argument. This Didrachma was paid for every man in the City where he dwelled, & because Peter had a house and a family in the City, Christ paid for him with whom he lodged, and him self. But if you draw it into an allegory. These absurdities will follow.  
First, that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingdom subject to tribute, yea, to Moses law, by which that kind of tribute was due.  
Secondly you divide Christ's church into two households, Didrachma was to be paid, for the head or first borne of every house. And you show your ignorance in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the first borne, whereas this was for all men. And for the first borne was dew five sickles, whereof every one was half an Vnee of Silver at the least, whereas Didrachma containing but two Drachmas. whereof every one was equal with the Roman penny could be but xuj. pence at the most of our money.  
It is a strong argument, that the payment of tribute which argueth subjection, should make Peter so great a Lord, that he should be out of all subjection, which if Chrysostom had considered, he would not have grounded Peter's primacy upon so frivolous an Argument.  
The seventh, Christ preached out of Saint Peter's Boat, to show that in his Chair, his doctrine should always be steadfastly professed. An Argument to be answered either with laughing or hissing.  
The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted, yet Peter's Faith alone is prayed for. This is utterly false, for Christ prayed for all his Apostles faith. joh. 17. if specially for Peter, it was in respect of his greater danger, and not in respect of his greater dignity.  
The 9 Peter first entered into the Sepulchre, ergo he was made pope. He entered for farther confirmation of his Faith concerning Christ's resurrection, this may be imputed to diligence but not to dignity.  
10, The Angel saith, Tell his Disciples and Peter, naming him severally because of his shameful fall, he had more need of comfort.  
The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him. Nay rather the Soldiers which kept the grave saw him before Peter, & the women also, which would give them dignity above Peter, if first seeing were a matter to argue dignity. or authority of the seer.  
The 12. only S. Peter walked on the Sea, that signifieth the world to be his jurisdiction. As he walked by Faith, so by weakness of faith he began to sink. And the Sea that he walked on, was but a lake or mere, & therefore cannot well signify the whole world, beside, the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a straw.  
13 S. Peter is showed to have loved Christ more than the rest, and is alone commanded to feed his sheep. He had good cause to love him more, because greater sins were forgiven him, but it is false, that he only was commanded to feed Christ's sheep, for all the Apostles were likewise commanded.  
14 It is saido to Peter, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and follow thou me, by which a particular kind of death on the cross is prophesied. A violent death, but no particular kind of death is showed by these words. And although it were, yet Peter in being crucified, was made no greater than Andrew, who was crucified also, if the stories of both be true,  
15 Peter answered always for the Apostles, ergo he was chief. No more than the foreman of the Iewrye, although it is not true, that he always answered for the rest, for sometime Thomas, sometime Philip, sometime judas answered. john. 14.  
16 Peter pronounced, judas Iscariot deposed. That was by special instinct of the holy Ghost, and by no ordinary authority.  
17 After the sending of the holy Ghost, Peter above all the rest, first taught the faith. Chrysostom and cyril saith, he did it by the consent of all the rest, who all stood up together with him, although one spoke to avoid confusion, when the Apology was made to answer the slanderous scoffers. But before that, they taught every one a like.  
18 The multitude converted, said to Peter and to the other Apostles, but to Peter by name: What shall we do. If this prove any thing, it proveth the equality of the Apostles, that having heard one man preach they demand not of him alone, but of all the rest with him, what they shall do?  
19 Peter made answer for all, that they should repent & be baptized. It was good reason seeing he made the apology for all.  
20 Peter did the first miracle after the coming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feet showed mystically, that he was the rock to establish the feet of other. I answer, john healed him as much as Peter, by Peter's own confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame man's acknowledging the benefit to be received equally from both, in holding Peter and john.  
21 Peter confessed Christ first not only before private men, but at the seat of judgement. Act. 4. It is false that Peter confessed Christ first before private men, and at the seat of judgement, he confesseth equally with Ihon.  
22 Peter alone gave sentence with fullness of power upon Ananias and Saphyra. Not by ordinary power, but by special revelation, and direction of the holy Ghost, whatsoever Gregory a partial judge in this case doth gather.  
23 Peter was so famous above the rest, that his shadow was sought, to heal the diseased. This was a singular and personal gift, which the Pope hath not, therefore it pertaineth nothing to him.  
24 Peter did excommunicate & enjoin penance to Simon Magus the first heretic. Peter denounced God's judgement against him, but not by way of excommunication, & yet the argument is nought, as all the rest are, though the antecedents were granted.  
25 Peter was the first that raised a dead body to life, namely Tabytha after Christ's ascension. This is neither proved to be true, neither if it were, should Peter thereby have greater authority, than his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peradventure before Peter, although S. Luke make no mention of them.  
26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to believe in Christ. This is false for Paul had that in vision before him. Act. 9 &. 26. 17.  
27 God chose that the Gentiles should first of all hear the word of the Gospel by Peter's mouth, and should believe. Acts. 15. This is false, for Peter sayeth not, first of all, but of old tyme. And the Eunuch of AEthiopia, was baptized by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter.  
28 Prayer was made for Peter, by the church, which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of. Their earnest prayer for Peter, is set forth to show that God at their prayer delivered Peter, not that Peter was thereby showed to be greater in authority.  
29 Paul and Barnabas came to jerusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter. Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth. But S. Luke noteth, that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at jerusalem, and not to Peter only, nor for his solution, but for the solution of the council.  
30 In the council Act. 15. Peter did not only speak first but also gave the determinate sentence. Both the parts of this proposition are false, for Saint Luke testifieth, there was great disputation before Saint Peter spoke, also saint james as Precedent of the council, gave the definitive sentence, according to whose words, the synodical Epistle, was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at jerusalem.  
31 Saint Paul came to jerusalem to see Peter as Chrysostom sayeth because he was primus first or chief? But Saint Paul himself affirmeth in the same place, and diverse other, that he was equal with Peter, and the highest Apostles. Galathians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11.  
32 Peter was either alone or first & chiefest in the greatest affairs of the church. The greatest affair of the church was the preaching unto the Gentiles in which Peter was neither alone, nor first, nor chiefest. But Paul chiefest. Gal. 2.  
33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupy with his chair the mother church of the Roman province and chief city of the world, and there vanquished Simon Magus the head of heretics. etc. All this is uncertain being not found in the Scriptures, but those stories which report it, convinced by Scriptures, to be false in diverse circumstances.  
34 Peter's chair and succession hath been acknowledged of all ancient fathers etc. Although the see of Rome appointed for the seat of Antichrist, hath of old been very ambitious, yet it is a fable, that hath been acknowledged by all ancient fathers to have the authority, which the Bishops thereof, have claimed. For Irenaeus rebuked Victor, for usurping. All the Bishops of Africa in council, withstood Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caebastinus, alleging for their authority a counterfeit decree of the council of Nic●, as we have showed before in the first treatise, the like may be said of the councils of Chalcedon, of Constantinople, the 5. etc. which withstood the Bishop of Rome's authority in such cases as he pretended prerogative.  
To conclude, neither any one, nor altogether of these 34. reasons, prove Peter to be greater in authority, than the rest of the Apostles, and much less the Bishop of Rome to be greater than Bishops of other seats.   

The tenth Chapter.  
THat the Apostles beside the prerogative of their Apostleship, 
Saunder.  had also the authority to be particular Bishops, which thing their name also did signify in the old time.  
ALthough the Apostles had all such authority, as every 
Fulke.  particular Bishop hath, yet had they not two offices, but one Apostleship. No more than a King although he have all authority that every Constable hath, is thereby both a King and a Constable, but a King only. Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence, in some particular city, prove that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops, that is give over their generally charge and take upon them a particular, or still retaining their general charge, to exercise the office of a Bishop any longer, then until the church was perfectly gathered, where they remained. For although the holy Ghost distinguished their universal charge into several parts, to avoid confusion, as in making Peter chief Apostle of the circumcision, and Paul of the Gentiles, yet were they not thereby made Bishops. And although the consent of writers is, that james was Bishop of jerusalem, yet following the course of the Scriptures, we must hold that jamesby decree of the holy Ghost, was appointed to stay there, not as a Bishop, but as an Apostle for the conversion of the jews, which not only out of all jury, but out of all parts of the world, came thither ordinarily to worship. Of S. Peter's sitting at Antioch as Bishop, we find nothing in the Scriptures, and less of his removing to Rome. But we find that when Peter came to Antioch, Paul withstood him to his face, and reproved him openly, which he might not well have done, if Peter had been supreme head of the church, & in his own see as M. Saunder doth fantasy.  
Where he allegeth the text & Episcopatum eius accipiat alter, and let an other take his Bishopric, to prove that judas and so the Apostles were Bishops, it is too childish & fond an argument, seeing the Greek word, which S. Luke useth & the Hebrew word which the Prophet useth, signifieth generally a charge or office, and not such a particular office of a Bishop, as now we speak of.  
He citeth farther Theodorete in 3. cap. 1. ad Tim. to prove that the name of an Apostle in the primitive church did signify such a Bishop. But how greatly Theodoret was deceived, appeareth by this, that he citeth for proof Philip. 2. Epaphroditus to be the Apostle of the Philippensians, because S. Paul saith of him Epaphroditus your Apostle, and my helper: whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger, using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the general signification for a messenger, and not for the name of such an officer as an Apostle or Bishop. He nameth also Titus and Timotheus which in the Scripture, are never called Apostles, likewise the Apostles and Elders at jerusalem, which were in deed the true Apostles of Christ's immediate sending, and not Bishops ordained by men. And whereas Jerome sayeth, that all Bishops be successors of the Apostles, he meaneth manifestly in authority, within their several charges, and not that the Apostles were Bishops. Likewise where Augustine saith, that the Bishops were made in steed of the Apostles, it rather proveth that the Apostles, were no Bishops, for than if the Apostles were Bishops, he should say, Bishops were made in steed of Bishops.  
The last reason is, that if the office of Bishops had not been distinct in the Apostles, from their Apostleship, that office would have ceased with the Apostleship, for the whole being taken away no part can remain, except it had an other ground to stand in, beside the Apostleship, as the Bishoppely power had. In deed if the Apostleship had ceased before Bishops had been ordained, Bishoplike power would have ceased with it: but seeing the Apostles ordained Bishops and Elders in every congregation, to continue to the world's end, the bishops office hath not ceased, though the office of the Apostles is expired. Wherefore seeing neither by Scripture, reason, nor Doctors, this distinction of offices in the Apostles, can be proved, when Peter is called head, Prince, chief, first, captain of the Apostles by cyril, or any ancient writer, we must understand, as Ambrose teacheth a primacy of confession or faith, not of honour or degree de incar. dom cap. 4.   

The 11. chapter.  
HOw far S. Peter did either excel or was equal with the 
Saunder.  Apostles in their apostolic office. Where in diverse objections are answered, which seem to make against S. Peter's supremacy.  
But that necessity enforceth him, M. Saunder thinketh 
Fulke.  it sin of curiosity to inquire of that equality or inequality of the Apostles, where as it should suffice us to follow the present state of the universal Church practised in our time. As though the universal Church of any time, did ever acknowledge the Pope to be supreme head, although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him. He thinketh it out of contronersie, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Matthew saith, primus, the first, Simon which is called Peter. And he is not content that he was first in the order of numbering, but he will have him first in dignity, because he is always named first. But that is nether true, nor a good reason if it were true, because he is named first, therefore he is of greatest dignity. But Gal. 2. 9 james and Cephas & john are said to have been pillars of the Church, and yet Paul equal with them. Although if we granted greatest dignity to Peter, yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority. For these three Apostles last named, were of greatest dignity among the Apostles, yet not of greater authority than the rest. And although the ancient fathers of the word primus, have derived the name of primatus, or primacy, yet have they also expressed, wherein this primacy doth consist, namely not in authority but in order, nether doth those name's Prince, chief, head, top, guide, mouth, greatest of the Apostles, used by some of them, signify his authority over them, but his dignity amongst them.  
But if you ask him wherein Peter was chief? He answereth ●●●● question is curious. For in the nature & order of the apostleship, every Apostle was equal with all his fellows, & so is every Bishop Priest, King, Duke, Knight with every one of his degree. If this be as he saith, than was Peter chief, nether as Apostle nor Bishop. But there may be another thing (saith he) coincident to some degree of men, not necessary for the being, but for their well being. One therefore was set over the Apostles, for unities sake, and to avoid schisms as Cyprian & Hierom write in places before cited. This must needs be a primacy of order and not of authority, for among men of equal authority, as he confesseth the Apostles were, one may be chosen as the Precedent or Primate, to avoid confusion, the austerity remaining equal to every one, but one can not be preferred in authority to remain still equal with his fellows in authority.  
But whereas Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Don. & Leo ad A●astas. Ep. 82. are cited to prove that the same primacy which Peter some time (but yet not always) had among the Apostles, should be retained in succession of his chair to maintain unity among all men, it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures, and yet those good men were far from imagining such an absolute power of Peter's successor, as M. Saunder defendeth in the Pope, although some times he do handle it so nicely, as it might seem to be a thing of nothing, wherein the Pope is above his fellow Bishops, where I said, that Peter had not always the primacy of order among the Apostles, it is proved, both by the 15. of the Acts, where james was Precedent of the council, & Gal. 2. not only where james is named before Peter, but also where Peter abstained and separated himself, after certain came from james, fearing them of the circumcifion, left he should have been evil thought of, as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius. and in diverse other places of the Acts of the Apostles.  
But M. Saunder will add another truth, to the former doctrine of Peter's primacy, namely that seeing the Apostles needed no head, because they were not in danger of error, the head was appointed over them for an example of the Church afterward, when that personal privilege of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors. But how will he prove that the privilege of not erring, hath continued in Peter's successors, more than in the successors of all the Apostles. Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, that he might confirm his brethren. I have often showed that he prayed for the perseverance of all his Apostles, and the cause of his special prayer for Peter, was proper to Peter's person, therefore can not be drawn to his successors. And what madness is it, to defend that the Pope can not err? when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretic both by the 6. Council of Constantinople, and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same council. Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant.  
But M. Saunder concludeth, to answer the argument of the equality of the Apostles, that Paul was equal with Peter in Apostleship: but by the appointment and will of Christ, Peter was head, to show that his Church having one Pastor in it above the rest, is one, as a kingdom one, by having one king in it. Howbeit we find the will of God for the supremacy and headship of Christ, over all his Church, to make it one, in the holy Scriptures, when of Peter's headship or supremacy there is never a word And Paul saith, that he was nothing inferior to the highest Apostles, 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely, than was not Peter his superior in any respect.  
That Paul reprehended Peter, M. Saunder saith, he might do it by equality of his Apostleship. If that be so, why may not every Bishop reprehend the Pope by equality of Bishopric. If you grant they may, then have you so many Canon's against you, as you can never save their authority and abide by your confession. But this fault you say, with Tertullian, was of conversation, not of preaching, that Peter might not seem to have erred in doctrine. Nevertheless it can not be excused, but Peter also erred in doctrine. Not in the general doctrine of the abolishing of the law, or of Christian liberty, but of bearing too much with the jews, in prejudice of the Gentiles, whom he compelled to judaisme, & in derogation of the truth of Paul's doctrine, which dissimulation he entered not into, for any worldly respect, but because he was d●ceyued in opinion, thinking that in that case he ought so to have done, before he being reprehended by Paul, saw the inconvenience, and then mildly yielded to the correction. But in this humble submission saith Master Sanders, Peter proved himself to be the head of all the Apostles, seeing Christ had said, he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser. In deed● he showed herein such greatness, as Christ commendeth, but no headeship or authority over his brethren. Cyprian ad Quintum, saith he, did not judge this reproving of Peter, to be an argument against his supremacy, but a witness of his humility, but he giveth us this much to understand, that if he had challenged primacy, he had taken upon him arrogantly, his words are these.  
Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, etc. For nether did Peter, whom our Lord chose the first, and upon whom he builded his Church, when Paul did strive with him about circumcision afterward, challenge any thing insolently, or take upon him arrogantly, to say that he had the primacy, and that he ought rather to have been obeyed of Novices and aftercomers: nether did he despise Paul, for that he was before a persecutor of the Church, but he did admit the counsel of truth. The like saith Augustine for his humility, but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacy. De bap. count Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scriptures etc. We have learned in the holy Scriptures, that Peter the Apostle, in whom the primacy of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the pre-eminence, when he used to d●e otherwise then the truth required about circum●sion, was corrected of Paul who was admitted after him to be an Apostle. In this saying the primacy is of time and order, not of dignity and authority. But Gregory much later than Augustive, granteth to Peter, not only a primacy, b●t also a majority, in Ezech. H●m. 18. Quatenus, etc. That he who was chief in the top of the Apostleship, should be chief also in humility. And again, E●ce à minore, etc. Behold Peter is reproved of his lesser, and he disdaineth not to be reproved. Nether doth he call to mind, that he first was called to the Apostleship. These words make Peter greater none otherwise, then that he was first called to the Apostleship, which argueth small authority over his iuniours.  
Hereupon he taketh occasion to inveigh against the pride of Luther, Zwinglius, Caluine etc. and their bitter dissensions, showing how far they are unlike to the Apostles. It is not to be doubted, that they were many degrees inferior to the virtue and holmes of the Apostles, but yet as well in humility as all other virtues, if they come not nearer to them, than the Pope, and his pompous clergy, let God and all indifferent men be judges.  
Moreover where as it is objected against the supremacy of Peter, that the Apostles sent him to lay hands upon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptised: he answereth, that proveth no more their equality, then when the Canon's of a Cathedral Church do chose their Dean or Bishop, to go about business of the chapter, it proveth the Dean and Bishop to be inferior to the Canons. But by his favour, where the Dean or Bishop are sent about business, it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those business, to be inferior to the whole chapter, as Peter & john were to the whole College of the Apostles, though the Bishop or Deane in other respects, be superior to the Canons, and Peter and john were equal to every one of the Apostles.  
Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is upon a false supposition, that Peter had authority to depose the Apostles, if they had fallen as judas did, therefore the Pope hath the like over Bishops. For nether had Peter any singular authority to depose any of his fellow Apostles, no more than he had to choose one in place of Mathias, nor the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops ever had of right, but by concession, election, or usurpation.   

The 12. chapter.  
THat S. Peter's prerogative above the other Apostles, is most manifestly seen● by his chief Bishoply power. How 
Saunder.  Christ loved Peter above others.  
M. Saunder fantasying that he hath proved Peter superior 
Fulke.  to the Apostles, not in their Apostleship, but in his bishoply degree, doth yet again distinguish the order and office of a Bishop from the authority and jurisdiction of the same. And in order and office he confesseth that all bishops of the world, are equal as Jerome sayeth, ad Euagrium, and Cyprian De unitate eccles●e, but not in authority. But seeing he rehearseth the testimony of Jerome imperfectly, I will set it down at large, that you may see whether it will bear his distinction. He writeth against a custom of the Church of Rome, by which the Deacons were preferred above the Priests, whom he proveth by the Scripture to be equal with bishops, except only in ordaining. Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus etc. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordination which a Priest or Elder doth not? Neither is it to be thought, that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole world. Both France, and britain, & Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, & all barbarous nations, worship one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If authority be sought, the world is greater than a city. Wheresoever a Bishop be either at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tunis, he is of the same worthiness & of the same Priesthood. Power of riches & baseness of poverty make not the Bishop higher or inferior. But they are all successors of the Apostles. And lest you should think he speaketh only of equality in order & office, & not in authority. He doth in an other place show that the authority of every Priest is equal with every Bishop by God's disposition, & that the excelling of one Bishop above other Priests, came only by custom. In Titum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subiectos: it a Episcopi noverint, se magis consuctudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, presbyteris esse maieres. Therefore as Priests do know, that by custom of the Church, they are subject to him that is set over them: so let Bishops know, that they are greater than Priests, rather by custom then by truth of the lords appointment. If the authority then & jurisdiction of Bishops dependeth upon custom, & not upon god's appointment, Peter was not by our lords appointment preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of the Apostles, nor the Bishop of Rome, before other Bishops & Priests, but only by custom. as Hierom saith. S. Cyprians words also infer the same. Episcopatus unus est, cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. The Bishop's office is one, whereof every man doth partake the Bishop's office wholly. Now if authority & jurisdiction do pertain to the Bishop's office, every Bishop hath it wholly, as (to follow M. Sanders example) whatsoever is incident to the nature or kind of a man, is equally in every man.  
But now the greatest matter resteth, to prove how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles, and that he taketh on him to prove, by this reason. Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles, therefore he gave him greater authority in feeding his sheep, then to the rest, But I deny the argument. For Peter loved Christ more than the rest, because Christ had forgiven him greater sin●es, then to the rest, Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof, he required greater diligence in doing his office, but gave him not a greater charge or authority.  
Now where M. Saunder reasoneth, that Peter loved Christ most, because Christ first loved him most, and Christ loved him most, because he would make him governor of his Church, it is a shameful petition or begging of that which is in question. For the nearest cause of Peter's greater love, was the greater mercy which he found, which mercy proceeding from the love of God as the first & infinite cause, can have no higher, superior, or former cause. But Peter in respect of greater love showed to him, in that greater sin was forgiven him, was bound to show greater love toward Christ, which he required to be showed in feeding his sheep, yet this proveth not, that greater authority was given him, or that he did feed more than all men. For S. Paul saith truly of himself, I have laboured more than they all, 1. Cor. 15. 10. whereby it appeareth, that Peter as a man, was not equal with Christ in the effect of excellent love, which was in him in comparable. And whereas M. Saunder talketh so much of his commission of feeding, I say these words feed my sheep etc. be not words of a new commission, but words of exhortation, that he show exceeding diligence in the commission equally delivered to all the Apostles: As my father hath sent me, so I send you. joan. 20 21.  
But the ancient fathers expound it so, that it might seem to be a singular commission to Peter. It can not be denied but divers of the ancient fathers, otherwise godly and learned, were deceived in opinion of Peter's prerogative, which appeareth not in the Scriptures, but was challenged by the Bishops of Rome, which seemed to have a show of some benefit of unity to the Church, so long as the Empire continued at Rome, & the Bishops of that ●●ie retained the substance of Catholic religion: yet did they never imagine, that such blasphemous & tyrannical authority, yea such false & heretical doctrine, as afterward was maintained under the pretence of that prerogative, should or ought to have been defended thereby. But let us see what M. Saunder can say, out of the aun●ient writers. August in Hom. de past. cap. 13. writeth: Dominus etc. Our Lord hath commended unity in Peter himself. There were many Apostles, and it is said to one, feed my sheep. God forbidden there should now lack good pastors, but all good pastors are in one, they are one. This maketh nothing for Peter's authority over the rest, but only the author supposeth the unity of all Pastors to be allegorically signified, in that Christ speaketh that to one, which is common to all good shepherds, namely to feed his sheep. And again de sanct hom. 24 In uno Petro etc. The unity of all pastors was figured in one Peter. So might it well be without giving Peter authority over all Pastors. Chrysostom is the next: lib. 2. de sacerdotio. who saith that Christ did ask whether Peter loved him, not to teach us that Peter loved him, but to inform us quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura. how great care he taketh of the government of this flock. Here he would have us mark, that Chrysostom calleth it a rule & government of the flock, which Christ intendeth. Yea sir, we see it very well, but you would make us blind, if we could not see, that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule, granted to Peter only, but of the government of every Church by every Pastor. And therefore you dance naked in a net, when you allege the words following absolutely, as though they pertained to Peter only. Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit, etc. whereas Chrysostom speaking to every Priest, & showing how careful he ought to be in his office, in respect of his high calling & the excellent dignity thereof, saith: Etiam ne nune nobisium contends fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse, quiper eam universis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus, quumpraesertim ea agas, quecum Petrus ageret, illum Christus auctoritate preditum esse voluit, ac reliquos item Apostolos longen praecellere. Wilt thou then still contend with us, that this fraud hath not happened well & luckily to thee, which by it, art to be made overseer of all the goods of God almighty, especially when thou dost those things, which when Peter did, Christ would have him to be endued with authority, & also far to excel the other Apostles. Here M. Saunder will have us note 3. things, 1, Peter's authority, 2. passing the Apostles, 3. far passing. We mark them all, that they are directly overthrowing M. Sanders rock of the popish Church. For they declare, that Peter in doing those things, was endued with authority, & far passed the other Apostles, even as every Priest (to whom Chrysostom speaketh) when he doth the same things, is endued with the same authority, & far passeth all other men. So that here is none other authority, nor excellence of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge, and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did. For Chrysostom proveth to Basil, that he did him no hurt, when by policy he caused him to be called to the ministry against his will, seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithful & wise servant, and equal in authority with Peter, if of love towards Christ he would diligently feed his flock. So that Leo had no just cause to say that in respect of any greater authority, Peter had a special care of feeding the sheep committed to him. but rather in respect that he had greater cause to love Christ, which had so mercifully forgiven him so shameful a fall.  
But Arnobius is a less partial witness than Leo a Bishop of Rome, & he upon the Psal. 138. writeth thus. Nullus Apostolorum nomen etc. None of the Apostles received the name of a Pastor. For our Lord jesus Christ alone said. I am the good pastor, & again my sheep follow me. Therefore this holy name, & the power of this name, after his resurrection he granted to Peter repenting. And he that was thrice denied, gave to his denier, that power which he had alone. Arnobius (saith he) noteth none of the Apostles ever to have had the name of a pastor given to him by Christ, beside S. Peter alone. But I demand of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word ever? For he saith, that Peter had this name after the resurrection which none of the Apostles had before. He writeth against the novatians which denied help to such as repent after baptism, proving by example of Peter, that they are to be received, seeing Christ gave him greater dignity after his repentance, than he had before his fall. But that Peter had greater authority than the rest of the Apostles he never thought or said. M. Saunder cutteth of both the head and the tail. In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appear, for thus he writeth: Dicis cert● baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subveniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur, qui est Episcoporum Episcopus, & mai●r gradus additur ploranti, quam sublatus est deneganti. Quod ut doceam, illud est endo, quod nullus Apostolorum nomen Pasioris accepit. etc. In deed thou sayest that such as repent being baptized ought not to be helped. Behold the Apostle repenting is helped, which is a Bishop of Bishops, and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying. Which that I may teach, this I show, that none of the Apostles received the name of a shepherd, etc. Again in the end following the words before cited by M. Saunder he saith, ut non s●lum recuperasse quod amiserat, probaretur, verum etiam & multo amplius poenitendo, quam negand● perdiderat acquisisse. He gave his denier that power which before his resurrection he alone had: That he might be proved not only to have recovered that which he lost, but also to have gotten much more by repenting, than he lost by denying. This speaketh Arnobius of the general authority which Peter had over all the Church, as every Apostle had likewise, & was a Bishop and overseer of Bishops as well as Peter, and a Pastor of the universal Church, which thing Arnobius never did deny. These therefore be M. Sanders arguments, none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christ's resurrection, ergo they never had it. Peter was called to greater dignity after his fall then he had before, ergo he was greater than his fellow Apostles. Again Peter was a Bishop or an overseer of Bishops, ergo he was Bishop over the Apostles.  
Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first aid, that Peter was every where, either alone or first And then upon these words, Peter dost thou love me, saith: Dominus interrogat etc. Our Lord asked net to learn, but to teach whom he being to be l●fted up into heaven, did leave to us as the Vicar of his love. For so thou hast ●●. Simon thou son of john, dost thou l●ue me? Yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee. jesus saith to him, feed my lambs. Peter being privy of a good conscience, doth testify his own affection, not taken for the time, but already well known to God. For who else were able to profess this thing of himself. A●d because he alone amongst all professeth, he is preferred before all. M. Saunder omitteth the conclusion. Maior enim omnibus charitas. For the greatest of all is Chari●ie.  
So Peter is hereby declared to have the greatest love, but not to have the greatest authority. M. Saunder urgeth that he is the Vicar of Christ's love and pastoral office. The one indeed Ambrose saith, the other Saunder sayeth but is not able to prove: no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose, that Peter had committed to him to feed, not only the Lambs with milk, as at the first, nor yet the little sheep, as at the second time, but the sheep, to the end that he being more perfect, might govern the more perfect. For every one of the Apostles had the same charge to feed the sheep of Christ, and not the Lambs or little sheep only. Neither doth the word of government help him. For every Apostle had the like government over the whole flock which Peter hath, and there is an ordinary government in every particular church, 1. Co. 12. which proveth not the governors to be rulers one over another, wherefore this collection is not only vain, but also ridiculus, that Peter should have authority to govern patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops aswell as Parish priests, because he must feed the sheep of Christ, I will not here stand to discus how properly the distinction of lambs little sheep & sheep, is observed by Ambrose, but taking it according as he distinguisheth it, yet here is nothing given to Peter but primacy of love, or as else where he saith of order, but of authority singular, he●re is nothing at al. And that his conclusion declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus, quem caro iamreue● are non posset a gloria passionis, corona decernitur. And therefore a crown is decreed to him as to one perfect in all things whom the flesh could not call back from the glory of suffering. This conclusion M. S. (as his manner is) hath left out, by which it is apparent, that Ambrose inferreth no singularity of authority in Peter, as more perfect than the rest of the Apostles, but as perfect in such degree, as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdom, were equal with him therein. The testimony of Bernard a late w●iter, though he were no flatterer, yet I receive not, as of one which was deceived with the common error of his time.  
But in sign that Peter was general Shepherd, saith M. San. it is not read that he was ordained bishop of any other then of Christ, yet did he with two other Apostles ordain S. james bishop of jerusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. ● writeth. There is no doubt but james was acknowledged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghost to remain at jerusalem, though not as a p●rticuler bishop, but as an Apostle of the whole Church. But as we read not that Peter was made Bishop by any man, so we read not that he was made Bishop by Christ.  
Yet Ar●obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops. Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus. Behold the Apostle being penitent is succoured, which is a Bishop of Bishops. He asketh if any thing could be spoken more plainly? yes verily, you had need of plainer speeches than this, to prove that he was bishop of the Apostles. For admit that he was an overseer of particular bishops, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify, yet it followeth not that he was ●n overseer or Bishop of the Apostles. In which sense Clemens also (if the Epistle were not counterfeit) might justly call james a Bishop of Bishops, & not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Bishops, but an Apostle overseer of particular Bishops.  
That Cyprian ad Quintum saith: Neque quisquam etc. Neither doth any of us make him self a bishop of Bishops. He aunsweareth that although no man may make himself, yet Christ may make a man Bishop of bishops, but where findeth he that Christ maketh the Pope a Bishop of bishops? How Peter might be called a Bishop of bishops, I have showed before But the Council of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Bishop of Rome, or any other Primate should be called the Prince of Priests, or highest Priest, or by any such like name, but only the Bishop of the first seat.  
Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus, lib. 7. de schism. of S. Peter. Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit etc. He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be communicated unto the rest. Ma●ster Saunder confessing and truly, that the Apostles took the Keys belonging to their apostolic office immediately of Christ, saith they received the Keys of their Byshoplike office of Peter. But what lock was there, that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key? When Christ saith, Whatsoever you bind or loose, & whose sins soever you forgive or retain, which was the power of their apostolic Keys? If the apostolic Keys were so sufficient, what need they any Byshoplike Keys? Into these absurdities both he & Optatus do follow, whiles the one will urge a prerogative of Peter, the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles, whereof the Scripture giveth us no instruction.  
As for Leo and Gregory bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mystery of iniquity having wrought in that seat, near five or six hundredth years before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceived with the long continuance of error, that they thought the dignity of Peter was much more over the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy Scriptures of God, (against which no continuance of error can prescribe) doth either allow or bear with all. Wherefore although he have some show out of the old writers, yet hath he nothing directly to prove that Peter did excel the other Apostles in Byshoplike authority, and out of the word of God no one ●ote or title, that Peter as a Bishop excelled the other Apostles, not as Apostles, but as Bishops.   

The 13 Chapter.  
THat the pastoral and chief bishops authority of Saint 
Saunder.  Peter, was an ordinary authority, and there fore it must go for ever unto his successors, where as the apostolic authority being extraordinary hath no successors in it. The Church never lacked a visible rock.  
THat the office of Apostles, which had general charge to preach over the whole world, is ceased with the 
Fulke.  Apostles lives, it is in deed granted of us: but that their apostolic authority was extraordinary, or that all their authority is so determined, that it hath no successors in it, we do utterly deny. For the same authority of preaching, of ministering the Sacraments, of binding and losing, which the Apostles had is perpetual in the Church, in the Bishops and elders, which are all successors of the Apostles. And if the apostolic authority, hath no successors in it, what meaneth the Pope almost in every Bull and decretal Epistle, to brag so much of the apostolic authority, & to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the apostolic authority. By which it is evident, that M. Sand. new distinction of apostolic and Byshoplike authority in the Apostles, is not acknowledged by the Popes themselves, but invented lately by such as he is, to have a starting hole, to seem to avoid such arguments and authorities, as prove all the Apostles equal in authority.  
But let us us see what reasons he hath to prove, that S. Peter's Pastoral authority was ordinary, and must go to his successors, more than the Pastoral authority of every Apostle. First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once, nor to govern nations newly converted, therefore he had twelve companions adjoined to him.  
But the world being converted, it is easy for the Pope without such fellows, to govern all the faithful, by help of many inferior officers. As though the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time. If S. Peter then was not able to rule, which had such great gifts much less the Pope, which is nothing comparable with him in gifts, & is often a wicked man & an heretic is able to govern all the Church, for he hath not so great an help of the conversion of the world, as he hath a want of Peter's gracious gifts, meet for such a government.  
Secondly he would have us mark, the peculiar names of a Rock, of a pastor, & of a confirmer of his brethren, which are given by Christ to S. Peter alone, which argue that Peter's supremacy must necessarily continue for ever. But who will grant to M. S. that Christ gave these peculiar names to Peter alone, indeed that which is meant by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church. Peter was a Rock, not his person, but his doctrine that remaineth still in the Church, he was a shepherd and confirmer of his brethren, and there be now many shepherds and confirmers of their brethren.  
Thirdly he saith the Church never wanted a visible rock on the earth, beside the eternal Rock Christ: who in this life might be so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christ the great Rock, that he (though not for his own sake, yet for the Church's sake) might be able to stay up all other small stones, which joined unto him, until Christ came in the flesh, who likewise appointed Saint Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock, as Adam Enos Henoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Moses, Aaron and his successors, who sat in the chair of Moses until the coming of Christ. Against this I say, that the church militant on earth, hath her foundation in heaven, and not on earth, therefore the church hath not a visible rock in earth. Again it is not true, that some one, hath always been this visible rock on earth. For who was greater Abraham or Melchisedech? out of all controversy Melchisedech, then was not Abraham the only rock. After the death of jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who was the visible rock until Moses was called. And yet had God a church among the jews all that time.  
Thirdly who is so impudent to say, that all the successors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith, that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned upon them. Was not Urias the high Priest an idolater? 2. Reg. 16.  
What were jason, Menclaus, Lysimachus by the report of the book of Macchabees? Was not Caiphas & Annas Sadducees by the testimony of S. Luke Act. 5. and of josephus? Where is then the visible rock, whose faith never failed & c? we see there was none such before Christ, therefore there need to be none such after him.  
His fourth reason is, of the name of a pastor, which signifieth an ordinary office, for as the sheep continue after S. Peter's death, so must there be also a shepherd, as Peter was. But how proveth he that Peter was an only shepherd? forsooth Chrysostom saith lib. 2. de sacerdotio. Christus sanguinem etc. Christ hath shed his blood to purchase those sheep, the care of whom he did commit both to Peter & to Peter's successors. But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peter's successors? the Bishops of Rome only? No verily but all true pastors of the church as his words going before do manifestly declare: Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur, siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat. Verum hoc ille sum agebat, ut & Petrum & caeteros nos edoceres, quanta benevolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur, ut hac ratione & nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium curamque toto animo susciperemus. For his purpose was not then to testify unto us, how much he was beloved of Peter for that was evident unto us by many arguments. But this thing than he intended, that he might teach both Peter and all us, what benevolence and love he beareth toward his church that by this reason we also might take upon us with all our heart, the love & charge of the same church. This sentence showeth that Chrysostom accounted himself & every true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone.  
As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I have often protested that he was more addicted to the dignity of his see, than the Scripture would bear him, and therefore was overruled and resisted, in the general council of Chalcedon.  
His fift argument is a rule of law, where the same reason is, the same right aught to be. The reason of Peter's confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office, of the church, therefore the office of Peter being a rock, of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christ's sheep, is an ordinary office. But I say, that Peter's confession made him not a rock, but declared him so to be, being appointed of Christ for one of the twelve foundations of the church, the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter, so it is not ordinary that it should be singular in any man.  
His sixth reason, Irenaeus, Optatus, and Augustine did reckon up such successors of Peter, as had lived till eu●rie of their ages or times. Therefore Peter had successors in his pastoral office. It is not denied, but he had them, and other Bishops also successors in his pastoral office, at least the Bishops of Antioch, whereby your own cofession he was Bishop, before he came to Rome. Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishops of one see.  
His seventh reason, no man may preach to them to whom he is not sent, therefore there must be a general pastor to send other to preach, to them that are not converted, to plant new bishoprics, to control them that are negligent, to supply the things that lack: to excommunicate such as live in no diocese etc. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is only of the sending of God, and of the sending by men. But all his questions and doubts, may be answered. Either the whole church in general councils, or every particular church in their synods, as they shall see most expedient, may send preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and john into Samaria & order all such matters, as he imagineth must be done only by the Pope. But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishops to general or provincial councils. And I ask him, who summoned, the four great & principal general councils? and so many provincial counsels, but the Emperors and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered? So that here is no necessary affairs of the church that doth require one general pastor or Pope of Rome when all things may and have been done best of all without him.  
As for placing of Bishops, in sees vacant, uniting of two bishoprics in one, or dividing one into two, may better be done by the authority of those churches, with consent of their Princes, who seethe and knoweth what is needful in those cases, then by one which sitting in his chair at Rome, requireth half a years travel, from some part of the world, to him, before he can be advertised of the case, and yet must understand it by hear say, and therefore not able to see what is expedient, so well as they that are present, and see the state of the matter. Finally it is against all likelihood, that Christ would make such a general shepherd over all his flock, as many thousand sheep, which live under the Sophi, the Cham, the Turk, can have none access unto, for such things as are supposed necessary to be had and to be obtained from him only. Wherefore if the Pope were head of the church, such as by cruelty of tyrants are cut from him should be cut from the body of the church. Yea if heathenish tyrants could so much prevail, as they do in hindering this government of the Pope, (pretended to be so necessary) the gates of hell might prevail against the church, contrary to the promise of Christ.   

The fourteenth Chapter.  
THat the ordinary authority of S. Peter's primacy belongeth 
Saunder.  to one Bishop alone. The whole government of the church tendeth to unity.  
COncerning peter's primacy, as there is little in the Scriptures, whereupon it may be gathered, so I have 
Fulke.  showed, that it was not in him perpetual. For there are greater arguments to prove the primacy of James. Again the greatest show of Peter's primacy, that we read of in the Scriptures, is the primacy or head Apostleship of the circumcision. So that if one Bishop should succeed him, in that primacy, he must be chief Bishop over the jews, and not over the Gentiles. For the chief Apostleship over the Gentiles, was by God committed to Paul. Galat. 2. 7. & 8. But if M. Saunder say, as he doth in an other place, that the Pope succeed both these Apostles, and therefore hath both their authority. First he overthroweth his own rock of the church, which he will have to be Peter alone. secondly his argument of unity, which he urgeth in this chapter he subverteth, if the Pope's authority be derived from two heads. Thirdly he destroyeth his own distinction of Bishoplike and apostolic authority, if the apostolic authority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession.  
Now let us consider what weighty reasons he hath, to prove the title of this chapter. S. Peter's authority was specified before the authority was given to the rest, of binding & losing. Mat. 18. Therefore seeing it was first in him alone, it ought to descend to one Bishop alone. But let M. Saunder show, where it was given to him alone, or promised to him alone either. For the promise thou shalt be called Peter, gave him no authority, nor yet the performance thereof: Thou art Peter. But still the authority is promised, I will build, I will give, (I reason as M. Saunder doth of the Future tense) which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter only, but to all the rest, and so all authority is given in common Io●an. 20.  
But S. Cyprian ad jubaianum, saith, that Christ gave the authority first to Peter. Petro primus Dominus (super quem aedificavit ecclesiam, & unitatis originem instituit & ostendit) potestatem istam dedit, ut id solueretur in terris, quod ille soluisset. This doth M. Saunder translate, Our Lord did first give unto Peter etc. Whereas he should say: Our Lord was the first that gave to Peter (upon whom he builded his church and instituted and showed the beginning of unity) this power, that whatsoever he loosed it should be loosed in earth. This proveth, that the authority came first from Christ, but not that it was given first to Peter. And if we should understand it so, that it was first given to Peter, yet he meaneth not, that it was given to reside in his person, but that in him as the attorney of the rest, it was given to them also, as he saith, lib. 1. Ep. 3. Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia, unus pro omnibus loquens & Ecclesiae voce respondens, ait Domine ad quem ibimus etc. Yet Peter upon whom the church had been builded, by the same our Lord, as one speaking for all, and answering in the voice of the church sayeth: Lord whether shall we go etc. as he spoke for all, so he received for all. Which thing if it had been so (as we find not in the Scripture) yet could it have been no ordinary matter, to descend to one by succession. For the power being once received by one in the name of the rest, and by him delivered to the rest, it should be continued in succession of every one that hath received it, and not every day to be fetched a new from a several head. For that beginning came from unity, which Cyprian speaketh of, when Peter being one, was the voice & mouth of the rest, and so received power for the rest, which being once received, the church holdeth of Christ, and not of Peter or his successors, no more than a corporation holdeth of him, that was their attorney, to receive either lands or authority from the Prince, but holdeth immediately of the Prince. Wherefore this argument followeth not, although the authority had begun in one, that it should continue in one.  
The second reason is, that the most perfect government is meet for the Church, but most perfection is in unity, therefore there ought to be one chief governor of all. This one chief governor is our Saviour Christ, ruler both in heaven & in earth. Who ascending into heaven, did not appoint one Pope over all his church, but Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors and teachers, that we might all meet in the unity of faith, and grow into a perfect man. Eph. 4. 11. & 12.  
The third reason is, that the state of the new Testament, must be more perfect than the law, but in the law, there was one high pastor, the high Priest on earth, therefore there must be one now also and much rather. I answer we have him in deed, our chief Bishop & high Priest, of whom the aaronical Priest, was but a shadow, namely jesus Christ, whose government is nothing less perfect and beneficial to his church in that he sitteth in heaven, and hath as before is cited left an ordinary ministery on earth in many Pastors and teachers over every several congregation and not in one Pope over all, which could not possibly either know, or attend to decide, the one thousand part of controversies, which are determined by the authority of Christ's law, and such ministers as he hath ordained.  
The fourth reason is of authority. Cyprian ad jubaianum: Ecclesia quae una est etc. The church which is one was founded by our lords voice upon one, which received the keys thereof. And again, de simplicitat. praelat. Quamsis' etc. Although Christ after his resurrection giveth equal power to all his Apostles and saith: as my father sent me so do I send you: receive the holy Ghost. If you remit to any man his sins they shall be remitted. And if you retain them, they shall be retained, yet that he might show the unity, he disposed by his authority, the original of that unity, beginning of one. But Cyprian proceedeth: Hoc erant etc. Vere by the rest of the Apostles were the same thing that Peter was, endued with equal fellowship both of honour and of power, but the beginning proceedeth from unity, that the church might be showed to be one. These words are plain to declare, that Cyprian acknowledgeth no inequality of the Apostles, in respect of any authority they had. Also that the building of the church upon one, and the receiving of the keys of one, was not an ordinary office to descend, by succession, but a singular privilege, for that one time to show the beginning, and not the continuance of the power to proceed from one, but to be held always of one, which is jesus Christ, without any shadows of one Bishop on earth to signify the same, when Christ is revealed with open face unto us now sitting in heaven. 2. Cor. 3. 18.  
The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Vt in ●na etc. That in one chair in which Peter sat, unity might be kept of all men, lest the rest of the Apostles should every one challenge a chair to himself: so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner, that against a singular chair, should place an other. Therefore in that one chair which is chief in gifts, Peter sat first. His meaning is to defend the unity of the church against the Donatists, but of the authority of Peter's chair over all other bishops chairs, if he had spoken any thing M. Saunder would not have concealed it, which doth us great wrong to think that we can not distinguish a chair of unity, from a chair of authority.  
The place of Hierom cont. jovin. lib. 1. hath been answered once or twice, showing that among the Apostles which were equal, Peter was chosen to be primate, to avoid contention, which was a primacy of order and not of authority. As for the collection of Lco Bishop of Rome, that Peter's primacy was a platform, for other Bishops to understand, that they must have a Bishop over them, if the very Apostles had an head among them, savoureth of the ambition incident to that see, which was appointed to be the seat of Antichrist. Although neither Leo himself, challenged so much as the Pope doth now, neither the Bishops of his time, would yield unto him in so much as he challenged. For beside the whole general council of Chalcedon, that concluded against him, about the privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople, wherein they made him equal with the Bishop of Rome, the title of seniority only reserved, it appeareth by his Epistles, that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy over them, as he claimed, whereof he complameth in diverse of his Epistles.  
The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies have sprung because one judge is not acknowledged in stead of Christ, for the time, to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He can not deny but it is meant of Cyprian of one judge in every diocese. But he reasoneth a fortiori, that there ought to be much rather one judge over all the world. Howbeit I have showed the in consequence of this argument, by example of one Physician, one Schoolmaster, one judge in temporal matters over the whole world, to whom it is as impossible to discharge such an office over all, as it is profitable for one such to be in every town. He saith that particular flocks, are voluntary, and likewise particular pastors, but one flock and one pastor, is of absolute necessity on earth. In deed the limits of particular flocks, and the persons of particular pastors, are left to the appointment and choice of the church. But that there should be particular flocks and pastors, it is of God's ordination, though God by his Apostles appointed it to be so, yet is it of as absolute necessity, while the church is dispersed in diverse places of the world, as that there is one flock and one shepherd over all jesus Christ, and yet he is not ashamed to challenge us pag. 298. Let the text be named where. Christ did institute many parishes? Whereas he himself, pag. 294. quoteth. Tit. 1. & Act. 14. which places prove, that Christ did institute many parishes, except he will say the Apostles did it without the institution of Christ, which he confesseth they did not without the special inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say, that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinance of many parishes, differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and unreasonably, against the plain institution of many parishes by Christ, bringeth a plain text where it is said, Feed me sheep to one pastor.  
Hath this man any forehead think you, that calleth this a plain text to prove that there should be one shepherd upon earth over all the flock, because Christ upon special occasion exhorted one man to feed his flock? Are all things that were spoken to him singular unto him? Christ said to him and to none other of the Apostles, come after me Satan, thou art an offence to me, for thou savourest not the things that are of God but of men. Christ said to Peter and to none other, put up thy sword into thy scabbard, Christ said to Peter and to none other, thou wilt deny me thrice. O painted rock of the Popish Church, that hath no better ground than this saying feed my sheep when he that challengeth authority hereby of all other feedeth least, and poisoneth most.  
But let us return and see what authority of old fathers he hath to prove one pastoral pre-eminence over all the church. Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus. unus est, & Christus unus, & una ecclesia, & Cathedra una super petram Domini voce fundata. There is one God, and one Christ, and one church, and one chair founded upon Peter by our lords voice. Hear I say first of all, that he doth falsify Saint Cyprians words turning pegram into petrum, so that his saying is, There is one chair by our lords voice founded on the rock. another altar or a new Priesthood can not be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere scattereth abroad etc.  
But if the word were petrum and not petram, yet the whole discourse of that Epistle showeth, that Cyptian meaneth by these words to set forth not the past oral pre-eminence of one man over the whole church, but one Bishop in every diocese. For he writeth against five Elders or Priests, which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatic, to be Bishop in Carthage against him.  
But what other malicious ignorance, or shameless impudence is this, that he perverteth the saying of Christ of himself, to the Pope? There shall be one sheepfold & one shepherd. joan. 10 Yet see his reason. A flock of sheep is one by force of one pastor, therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one, the flock is not one on earth. If this argument be good, how is the flock one upon earth, when there is no Pope? For the see hath been void diverse times, many days, many months, & sometime many years. How was the flock one, when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often, and so long together? Therefore the flock on earth is one by that one only shepherd jesus Christ, whose divine voice all the sheep hear, though in his humanity, he be ascended into heaven, and not by any one mortal man, to whom they can not be gathered, neither being so far abroad dispersed, can hear his voice.  
And the whole order of the church on earth, tendeth to an unity in Christ, & not in one man whatsoever, as one general pastor. For if that one should be an heretic, and all the church tend to unity in him, the whole church should be wrapped in heresy with him. That diverse Popes have been heretics as Libe●ius, Anastasi●s, Vigil●us, Honorius, John the 23. in known condemned heresies, it is too manifest by records of antiquity, that it should be denied, wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary authority, to be limited in one succession that it should have pre-eminence & imisdiction over all the church. Seeing unity is best maintained in doctrine by his word, in government, by the discipline by him appointed. And unity in truth can not be had at the hands of a man, which is a liar, & experience showeth that the jurisdiction which the Bishop of Rome hath claimed, hath been occasion of most and greatest schisms and dissensions that have been in particular churches, when no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome, beside so many schisms as have been in the same see, which have set all the Christian world together by the cares, while they were divided in factions, some holding with one Pope, and some with an other, and some with the third, and some with none of them all.   

The 15. Chapter.  
THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinary pastor who 
Saunder.  succeed in S. Peter's chair, and is above all bishops according to the meaning of God's word. Why S. Peter died at Rome. S. Augustine's mind touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.  
THe first reason is, that although Peter at the first 
Fulke.  was rather high Bishop of the circumcision, than of the Gentiles, yet because he did at length settle himself at Rome by God's appointment, and left a successor there, he sayeth he may well affirm, that the Bishop of Rome's primacy is warranted by God's word. A strange kind of warantise, for to omit that the primacy over the Gentiles by God's word, is given to another, namely to Paul, from whom he can never prove, that it was taken afterward. Where hath he any word of God to prove, that by his appointment, Peter settled himself at Rome, and appointed there a successor? He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordained not by Peter only, but by Peter & Paul the Apostles, who founded the Church there, even as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia, was made bishop in Smyrna, which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paul, and continued by john the Apostles, he citeth as witnesses alike, with the Church of Rome, of the tradition of the Apostles, against Valentinus and Martion which being void of Scriptures, bragged of the tradition of the Apostles. But of Peter's primacy, or his successors over all Bishops, Irenaeus saith not a word. No more doth Tertullian, whom likewise he quoteth, de praescrip. but even as Ireneus would have the tradition of the Apostles, against those heretics that boasted of it, to be tried by the confession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles.  
His second reason is, upon a false supposition, that he hath already proved, Peter alone to be the rock, to have chief authority in feeding etc. all which things are untrue.  
That Peter came to Rome, he is not content that it be testified by all ancient Ecclesiastical writers. But he saith it is witnessed by the express word of God. 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you. Although the history of Peter's coming to Rome, and sitting there 25. years, testified by so many writers, is proved false, in many circumstances, by the plain word of God, yet I am content to admit, that he came thither, toward the later end of Ne roes reign. But that in his Epistle, he sent salutations from Rome, I can not admit: seeing that in such manner of salutations, men use not to write allegorically, albeit, that in the revelation of Saint john Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called Babylon. But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write, is more probably to be taken, for a city of that name in Egypt, where Mark was with him, whom the consent of antiquity affirmeth, to have been Bishop of Alexandria a city of Egypt also, who could not have been with him at Rome. Seeing it is manifest by the first and second of the Epistle to the Galathians, and by diverse of Saint Paul's Epistles, that if ever Peter was at Rome, it was but a short time in the later end of Nero his Empire. Whereas Mark died in the eight year of his reign, before Peter could be at Rome. For in the tenth year Paul was brought prisoner to Rome, Saint Luke accompanying him, who would not have omitted to show, that Peter was there to have met him, as the rest of the brethren did, if he had then been at Rome. Again Paul in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome, sending salutations from mean personages, would not have omitted mention of Peter, if he had been there. Saint Luke then affirming that he tarried two years in prison at Rome, which must be until the twelve year of Nero, it followeth that if Peter came, he came very late to Rome within two year before his death, at which time it was not possible, that Mark which was dead four years before, could be at Rome with him, wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome.  
Another reason of the Pope's supremacy he maketh, that Peter not only came thither, but also died there. A simple reason, why the city of Rome should have that prerogative, because she murdered the Apostles. Rather might jerusalem claim it, in which Christ the head of all died. After this he telleth the fable out of the counterfeit Egesippus, of Simon Magus flying in the air, & the Emperor Nero his great delight in his sorcery. The credit of Egesippus he descendeth, by blaming his translator for adding names of cities, which had none such when Egesippus lived. But that Simon Magus showed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero, as this counterfeit Egesippus reporteth it is plain, by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. nature. Histor. who showing how desirous Nero was, and what means he had to have trial thereof, yet never could come by any. It was a practice of old time, to fayne such fables, for love of the Apostles, as Tertullian witnesseth, de baptis. of a Priest of Asia, that was convicted & confessed, that he feigned for the love of Paul, a writing unto Tecla, in which many absurd things were contained. Again so many Apocryphal gospels, epistles, itineraryes and passions, as are counterfeited under the name of Apostles, and ancient fathers, who knoweth not to be fables and false inventions. Among which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one. That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peter's death, he preventeth the objection, because he continued not his story so far: which doubt (saith he) he would not have omitted, if he had gone so far forward in his story. But seeing he brought Paul to Rome, both in his journey, and in his history, why maketh he no mention of Peter's being there? which if their story were true, must have sit there twenty years before. To omit therefore the four causes, why Peter should die at Rome, whereof three are taken out of a counterfeit, August. de sa ctis, hom. 27. the 4. out of Leo & Gregory Bishops of Rome: he cometh to decide the controversy between the Greeks & Latins, who was first successor of Peter, Linus or Clemens, taking part with them that affirm, Clemens although Irenaeus the most ancient writer of any that is extant, name Linus who was not a Grecian far of, but a Frenchmam at Lions near hand to Italy, whose authority although he reject, in naming Linus to be ordained Bishop by both the Apostles, yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Church of Rome. Maximam & antiquissimam, etc. The greatest and the most ancient, & known to all men, founded and settled by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. And again, Adhanc Ecclesiam etc. To this Church by reason of the mightier principality, every Church, that is, the faithful that are every where must needs agree. But he proceedeth and showeth the cause why. In qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conser●ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio. In which always that tradition which is from the Apostles hath been always kept, of them that are round about. M. Saunder calleth it wilful ignorance, in M. jewel, that saith the mightier principality spoken of in Irenaeus, is meant of the civil dominion, and Roman Empire, whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation, that it was the greatest and the most ancient: the greatest he saith, because it was founded by Peter the greatest Apostle, but so saith not Irenaeus, for he saith it was founded by two most glorious Apostles, and not by Peter alone. It was then greatest, because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome, as the greatest city. But how is it the most ancient? but in respect of Peter's seniority, for otherwise jerusalem and Antioch were ancienter in tyme. I answer two ways, first it is sophistical to urge the superlative degree grammatically, as when we say, potentissimo principi, to the most mighty prince, doctissimo viro, to the best learned man, etc. We do not mean, that no Prince is equal or superior in power, nor that no man is equal or superior in learning, to him whom we so commend, but to show the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great.  
Secondly I answer, that Irenaeus speaketh conjunctly, it is sophistical to understand severally. He saith there is no Church of such greatness, so ancient, and so well known, as the Church of Rome.  
From this blind collection out of Irenaeus, he cometh down groping to Cyprian, who speaking of certain factious heretics, that sailed from Carthage to Rome, to complain of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Africa to Pope Cornelius. Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent & ad Petri, etc. They dare carry letters from schismatical and profane men unto the chair of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence the priestly unity began, Nether consider that they are Romans, whose faith is pray said by the report of the Apostle unto whom falsehood can have none access.  
In this saying we must note the privileges of S. Peter's supremacy, to be at Rome. 1. This is S. Peter's chair, that is his ordinary power of teaching, etc. Nay rather the Bishop's seat, which he and Paul did set up there as Irenaeus showeth, li. 3. ca 3. 2. There is the principal Church, because the Bishop of Rome succeed the prince of the Apostles. Nay rather, because it is the greatest Church, being gathered in the greatest city of the world, as Irenęus also calleth it. 3. The priestly unity began not in Rome but in Peter, therefore there is the whole authority of Peter. The argument is nought, the beginning of unity proveth not authority. 4. this word unity doth import, that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe shepherd, so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power. This argument is of small importance, for nether had Peter alone such power, nor any of his successors. 5. where he saith infidelity can have no access to the Romans, what other thing is it, then to say in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed. Luc. 22.  
Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles, and of all his Disciples, to the end of the world. joan. 17. Beside this, Master Saunder translateth perfidia which signifieth falsehood or false dealing, infidelity, secondly that which Cyprian saith of all the faithful Romans, he draweth to his Pope, thirdly where Cyprian showeth how long they shall continue without falsehood, namely so long as they retain the faith praised by the Apostle, he maketh it perpetual to the sea of Rome: whereas the Romans themselves writ to Cyprian of those praises of the Apostle, quarum laudum & gloriae degenerem fuisse, maximum crimen est. Of which praises and glory to be grown out of kind, it is the greatest crime. Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Church of Rome could not err, he would never have maintained an opinion against them, as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptized by heretics.  
The 6. We must add heareto, that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem, the mother & root of the Catholic church. lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there, we find that Cyprian & his fellows, exhorted all such troublesome persons, as went over sea, & carried false tales, Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radi●em agnoscerent & tenerent, that they would acknowledge & hold the mother and root of the Catholic Church, by which words, they dissuaded them from ioygninge with schismatics, who being condemned in one Church, would gad up and down for absolution in an other.  
The 7. did not S. Cyp. confess Cornelius to have received the appellation of Rasilides lawfully, out of Spaine● li. 1 Ep. 4, There is no word of any such confession or appellation, in that epistle. But rather, if you suppose an appellation & a restitution by the Bishop of Rome, Cyprian & 36. bishops with him, determine the same restitution to be void & of none effect: Neque rescindere ordinationem i●re perfectam potest, quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta, & conscientiam propria confessione nudatam, Romam pergens, Stephanum collegam nostrum long positum & gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut ambiret reponi se miustè in episcopatum, de quo fucrat justè depositus. Haec eò pertinent ut Basilidis, non tam abolita sint quam cumulata delicta, ut ad superiora peccata eius, etiam fallaciae & circumuentionis crimen accesseris. Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptum, quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit. Obrepere autem hominibus Basilides potuit, Deo non potest, cum script● sit, Deus non irridetur: Neither can it make frustrate the ordination lawfully made, y Basilides after his crimes were detected, & his conscience opened by his own confession, going to Rome, hath deceived our fellow bishop Stephan, being far of & ignorant of ● matter & of ● truth, ● he might ambitiously seek to be unjustly restored into his bishopric from which he was justly deposed These things tend to this end, that the offences of Basilides, are not so much abolished as increased, so that to his former sins the crime of deceifulnesse and circumvention is added. For neither is he so much to be blamed who was negligently deceived, as he is to be abhorred, which did craftily deceive him. But if Basilides could deceive men, he could not deceive God, seeing it is written, God is not mocked.  
here is no lawful appellation spoken of, but the bishop of Rome's sentence pronounced void, and he blamed for his negligence and rashness, to meddle with matters whereof he could have no knowledge, by means of distance of place. But if M. San. reply, that he is not reproved for taking such appellations, he must hear what Cyprian saith of such appellations which began to be used in his days, unto Cornelius B. of Rome immediately after the words cited by him. lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatics that were so bold as to sail to Rome, and carry letters as above. Quae autem causa veniendi & pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nunciandi? Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt & in suo scelere perseverant, aut si displicet & recedunt, sciunt quo revertantur. Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter & justum, ut vnius●uiusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus, oportet utique eos quibus presumus non circumc●rsare, nec episcoporum concordiam coherentem sua subdola & fallaci ●emeritate collidere. Sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint, nisi paucit desperatis & perditis, minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui iam de illis iudicaverunt & eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctam judicij sui nuper gravitate damnarunt: But what cause had they to come and to report that a false Bishop was made against the Bishops: For either that which they have done pleaseth them, & they continue in their wickedness, or if it displease them, and they go back from it, they know whether they should return. For whereas it is decreed of us all, & is also meet and right, that every man's cause should be hard there, where the crime was committed, and a portion of the flock is committo every Pastor, which every one ought to rule and govern, as he that shall yield an account of his doings to the Lord: verily it behoveth them over whom we have rule, not to run about, neither by their crafty & deceitful rashness to crase the concord of Bishops agreeing together: but there to plead their matter where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crime, except the authority of the Bishops ordained in Africa seemeth to a few desperate and wicked fellows to be less, which have already judged of them, and condemned their consciences, bound with the weight of their judgement in many cords of their offences. This place of Cyprian declareth not only that the bishops of Africa, had decreed against such appellations, but also that they thought their authority nothing inferior to the Bishops of Italy, nor to the bishop of Rome himself.  
The 8. note out of Cyprian is, That he required Stephanus the Pope, to depose Marcianus the Bishop of Arles in France, which to d'ye in an other province is a sign that the Pope of Rome is above other Bishops. If it were true that M. Saunder showeth, it might prove the Bishop of Rome, to be a Primate or Metropolitan, it could not prove him to be a Bishop over all the world. But it is utterly false, that he saith, Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to depose him, for he was deposed by the judgement of all the Bishops of the West Church: Ab v●iuersis sacerdotibus iudicatus, condemned of all the Priests, only he exhorteth Stephan of Rome, which was negligent in this behalf, to join with the rest of the bishops of France in ordering of another bishop in his stead, who long since hath been excommunicated and deposed from his place, for taking part with Novatiane the Heretic. And lest you should think the whole m●tter to be referred to the Bishop of Rome, these are is words in the same Epistle. li, 3. Ep. 13. Id circo enim frater charissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque unitatis vinculo copulatum ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeres●m facere & gregem Christi lacerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes, oves dominicas in gregem col●igant: For therefore most well-beloved brother, the body or fellowship of priests is plentiful, being coupled together by the Glue of mutual concord, and the band of Amity, so that if any of our company shall assay to make an heresy, or to rent or waste the flock of Christ, the rest should give aid, and as profitable and merciful shepherds gather again the Lords sheep into his fold.  
The 9 note is, That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptized by here●kes, yet he denied not his prerogative. but kept still the unity of the militant Church, in acknowledging the visible head thereof. He quoteth his ep. Contra Stephan, wherein is no word of acknowledging the Pope's prerogative, but contrary wise every child may see, that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinion from the B. of Rome, & wrote against him, he held no such prerogative of that sea, as the Papists now maintain, that the bishop of Rome cannot err. In deed Cyprian professeth, that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion, yet he would not depart from the unity of the Church, but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head, whereof M. S. speaketh much, but Cyprian never a word, neither in that place, nor in any of all his works.  
The next authority is Hippolytus whose words Prud rehearseth: Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite etc.  
H●s answer was O flee the schisms of cursed Novates l●re:  
And to the Catholic f●lke and stock, yourselves again restore.  
Let only one faith rule and reign, kept in the Church of old:  
Which faith both Paul doth s●l retain & Peter's chair doth hold●  
No doubt this was a good exhortation, so long as the temple of Peter a●d Paul at Rome did hold the old catholic faith: from which seeing the Pope is now fled, we may not honour the empty chair of Peter, to think there is his faith, where his doctrine is not.  
After Hippolytus, followeth Sozomenus, who reporteth that Athanasius and certain other Bishops of the Greek Church came to Rome to julius the bishop there, to complain that they were unjustly deposed by the Arians. Whereupon the Bishop of Rome finding them upon examination to agree with the Nicene council did re●eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all, for the worthiness of his own See, and did restore to every of them their own Churches. etc. here M. Saunder hath his 9 observations, he delighteth much in that number. But it shall not need to stand upon them, it is confessed that in Sozomenus time, the writer of this story, who judgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lived, the sea of Rome was grown into great estimation, and counted the first See or principal in dignity of all bishops Seas in the world. Yea, it is true that Socrates a writer of Histories as well as he sayeth, That long before his time, the bishops Sea of Rome aswell as of Alexandria, was grown beyond the bands of Priesthood, into a foreign Lordship & dominion. Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the records of the very time in which julius lived, we shall not find that the dignity of his Sea was such, as that he had such authority as Sozomenus aseribeth to him, and much less such as M. Saunder imagineth of him.  
In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus, which beside that he called him his fellow minister, acknowledgeth no such dignity of his Sea lib. 3. to. 1. And Sozomenus himself testifieth that the Bishops of the East, derided & contemned his commandements. lib. 3. Cap. 8. & cap. 11. they were as bold to depose him with the bishops of the West, as he was to check them, that they called not him to their council. Wherein as I confess, they did evil, yet thereby they showed evidently, that the Christian world in those days, did not acknowledge the usurpation of the bishop of Rome, as M. Saunder saith they did. Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him, if it had been a Catholic doctrine received in the Church, that the bishop of Rome is head of the Church, Bishop of all Bishops, judge of all causes, and one which cannot err. As for Athanasius, Paulus, etc. and other Bishops being tossed to and fro, by their enemies, no marvel if they were glad to find any comfort at the Bishop of Rome's hands, having first sought to the Emperors for refuge, of whom sometime they were holpen, sometime they were hindered as information was given either for them or against them.  
But Arnobius he sayeth giveth a marvelous witness for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto. etc. Peter wandering in the desert of this world, until he came to Rome, preached the baptism of jesus Christ in whom all floods are blessed from Peter unto this day. He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst, so that he which shall go forth of the Church of Peter shall perish for thirst. It is a marvelous wit of M. Saunder, that can find such marvelous prerogative of Peter, in this place which Arnobius would have in the example of Peter to be understood of all men. Quid est ascendunt? Disce in Petro, ut quod in ipso inveneris, in omnibus cernas. Ascendit Petrus etc. What meaneth this they go up as high as heaven? Learn in Peter, to th'end that that which thou shalt find in Peter, thou mayst see in all men. Peter went up as high as heaven, when he said: Although I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee etc. and so applying the understanding of the Psalm to Peter, and in him to all Christians, he cometh to that marvelous testimony of the church of Rome, which M. Saunder reporteth, showing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptism of jesus Christ in whom all floods are blessed from Peter to this day. Where M. Saunder useth a false translation, saying the floods are blessed of Peter, and expoundeth the floods to be the churches, whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters, which in Christ are sanctified to the use of baptism, from the Apostles time until this day. But it is a Catholic argument that whosoever goeth out of the Church of Peter, goeth out of the Church of Christ, therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the head thereof. Even like this, whosoever goeth out of the Church of Paul, or of any of the Apostles wheresoever they planted it, doth perish therefore Corinth and Paul, or any other City & the Apostle that preached there, may be taken for the head and Pastor, and mother Church of all other, yet is this with M. Saunder a marvelous testimony.  
Optatus succeeded Arnobius. Cont. Pamen de nat: lib. 2. Negare nonpotes. etc. Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishop's chair was given in the city of Rome, in which Peter the head of all the apostles hath sit: wherofhe was also called Cephas, in which chair unity might be kept of all men, so that he should be a schismatic which should place any other chair against the singular chair. Unto Peter succeeded Linus, unto Linus succeeded Clemens, & so nameth all the Bishops until Siricius which lived in his time, of whom he saith, Qui noster est socius, which is our fellow. In this sentence Optatus laboureth to prove against the Donatists which were schismatics, that there is but one Catholic church from which they were departed. He useth the argument of unity commended in Peter's chair whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respect of unity, & not of authority, which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, not head of all Churches nor universal Bishop of all Bishops, but Socius noster, our fellow or companion, as one consenting with him in the unity of that Church, which was first planted by the Apostles, and not as a general governor of the universal Church of Christ. Wherefore although Optatus do more than was necessary urge this argument of the unity of Peter's Chair, yet his meanining was not to set forth an unrepr ovable authority thereof, such as the Pope now challengeth, but only to make it the beginning of unity.  
At length he cometh to S. Jerome in an Epistle to Damasus, out of which he gathereth divers sentences. M●hi cathedram etc. I thought it best to ask council of the Chair of Peter, & of the saith praised by the mouth of the Apostle. I speak with the successor of a fisher, and with a difciple of the cross. I following none first but Christ, am joined in communion with thy blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. Upon that Rock, I know the Church to be builded. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is unholy. If any man l●e out of the Ark of Noah during the time of the Flood, he shall perish. I know not V●atis, I despise Melitius, I have no acquaintance with Paulinus, whosoever doth not gather with thee, he doth scatter abroad, that is, he that is not of Christ, is of antichrist. The conclusion openeth all the matter as long as Damasus Bishop of Rome, gathereth with Christ, that is mayntameth true doctrine, Jerome will gather with him, who professed before that he would follow none as first, but Christ, For he would not have gathered with Liberius bishop of Rome, whom he confesseth to have subscribed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script. ecclesi. What mockery is it then to draw the commendations of a good Catholic Bishop maintaining true Doctrine, to every bishop sitting in that seat, agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor.  
Augustine must succeed Jerome, who in his 166. Epistle giveth us this rule. Caelestis magister. etc. The Heavenly master maketh the people secure, concerning evil overseers, lest for their sakes the Chair of healthful doctrine should be sorsaken, in which Chair evil men are ever constrained to say good things, for the things which they speak are not their own. But they are the things of God.  
here sayeth Master Saunder we have a Chair of healthful doctrine, and that is afterward called the Chair of unity, therefore it is not the Chair of every Bishop, which are many, and of which many have been Heretics, but the only chair of the bishop of Rome, in which Chair the Pope be he never so evil, is constrained to say good things and cannot err. But seeing I have often proved that many Bishops sitting in that Chair of Rome have spoken evil things, and were filthy Heretics, it followeth, that this is not a wooden Chair that Augustine speaketh of, but the Chair of true doctrine, such as the Chair of Moses was, in which not only Aaron and his successors, but even the scribes and Pharisees did sit, having the authority of Moses, while they uttered nothing but that which God delivered by Moses. But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chair of Moses, but in the chair of pestilence, as the Pope & all other heretics do. He talketh much of unity in S, Peter, in his chair, sea●e and succession, as though any of these, were worth a straw, without unity in S. Peter's doctrine, which was the doctrine of Christ.  
But Saint Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the succession of priests from Saint Peter unto this present time stayed him in the Catholic Church. It is true, he confesseth that this succession among many things was one that stayed him. And yet he acknowledgeth that the manifest truth, Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica tene●r, is to be preferred before all things by which I am stayed in the Catholic Church, namely before antiquity, consent of nations, miracles, succession of Bishops and the name of Catholics.  
Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner against the Donatists which Master Saunder hath not omitted. Epist. 165. He sayeth, Quamuis non tam de istis documentis presumanus quam de Scripturis sanctis. Although we presume not so much of these documents as of the holy spriptures. Wherefore as the argument of succession, was well used against heretics, so long as there was succession of doctrine with succession of persons: so now to allege the only succession of persons where the doctrine is clean changed, is as foolish & ridiculous, as by showing of empty dishes, to prove abundance of victuals, or showing vessels full of filthy waters, to prove that they are full of good wine, because meat of old time, hath been served in such dishes, and wine preserved in such vessels.  
But if the authority of one man as Saint Augustine was, seem little M. San. bringeth the two counsels gatheredin Africa & Numidia, against the Pelagians which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome, That the authori-of the Apostolic Sea might be given to them Epi. 19 if they required the B. of Rome to agree with them in the truth, what pretog●tiue of supremacy do they grant unto him? Nay rather they do p●iu●ly reprehend him, that he had so long suffered the Pelagian poison to be spread under his nose in Europe, and the doctrive neither called to examination, nor confuted, yea rather seemed to consent to the den of the bishops of the East, that Pelagius was justly absolved. But Pope Innocentius himself praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the old tradition, in referring the matter to his Sea and saith, That the sathers not by humane but by divine sentence have decreed that what soever was done in the provinces a far of, they should not account it before to be ended, except it came to the knhwledge of this sea, where whatsoever had been justly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authority of this sea, and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their own native fountain. We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeited, because many patches thereof are found in other decretal epistles but we deny that the authority which he pretended, was acknowledged by these two counsels, yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Milevitan council say: Arbitramur etc. We think these men that have so pernicious and froward opinions will give pla●e more easily to the authority of your holiness, being taken out of the authority of the holy Scriptures, by help of the mercy of our lord jesus Christ which ●ouch●●feth to rule you when you consult & to hear you when you pray by these words they show, that they hope the here tikes being reproved by the B. of Rome out of the wo●d of God, will the rather give place, which out imagining, that the B. of Rome's authority is so established by the scriptures that whatsoever he decree contrary to thescriptures the same should be embraced But a farther confirmation of the epistle of Innoce. he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith, Pope Innocent did write an answer to the Bishops in allthings, as it became the prelate of the apostolic sea. But these words neither prove that epistle to be written by Innocent, nor if it were, do allow his pretended auth ority, because that was no matter whereof they required his answer. But to put it out of doubt. Both these Counsels have decreed against the usurpation of the Romish sea. As the council Milevitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa, under pain of excommunication.  
The last authority cited out of Augustine, is, Epistle 162. speaking of the Church of Rome. In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus. In which always the principality of the apostolic chair hath flourished. A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine advanced the Church in wealth & dignity, esteemed the church of Rome as the principal Sea in dignity, but not in absolute authority, such as in process of time the Bishops of Rome claimed and usurped. For even the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yield to the Bishop of Rome, claiming by a counterfaire Canon of the Council of Nice, to have authority to receive appeals out of Africa. Epi. con. Aphr. ad Bonifac. which they cou●pte an intolerable pride and presumption, and in Epist. cont. Aphri. ad Coelesti●●m fumosum typum seculi, A smokey pride of the world which the Pope claimed and an absurd authority, that one man should be better able to examine such causes, than so many Bishops, of the province where the controversy began, and by the old Cannons should be ended.  
To Augustine he joineth Prosper Bishop of Rhegium in Italy which affirmeth in lib de ingrat. that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius, which Rome being made head unto the world of pastoral honour holdeth by religion whatsoever it doth not possess by war. And again. Rome through the primacy of the apostolic Priesthood, is made greater by the castle of religion, then by the throne of power. First how untruly he boasteth that the see of Peter, was the first that did cut of the heresy of Pelagius you may easily see, by that the council of Africa did before condemn it, & had somewhat a do to persuade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it. Whereby you see, that Prosper was over partial to the see of Rome, to whom yet he ascribeth a principality or primacy of honour, not of power or authority.  
The testimonies of Leo & Gregory Bishops of Rome as always, so now I deem to be unmeet to be heard in their own cause, though otherwise they were not the worst men, yet great furtherers of the authority of Antichrist, which soon after their days, took possession of the chair, which they had helped to prepare for him. The last testimony out of Beda which lived under the tyranny of Antichrist, I will not stand upon, M. Saunder may have great store of such late writers to affirm the Pope's supremacy.   

The 16. Chapter.  
THat the good Christian Emperors and Princes, did never 
Saunder.  think themselves to be the supreme heads of the church in spiritual causes, but gave that honour to Bishops, & Priests, & most specially to the sea of Rome, for S. Peter's sake, as well before, as after the time of Phocas. A Priest is above the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes. The oath of the royal supremacy, is intolerable. Constantine was baptized at Rome. Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches.  
COncerning the supremacy of our sovereign, which this traitorous Papist doth so maliciously disdain, 
Fulke.  although it be expounded sufficiently by her Majesty in her injunction, not to be such as he most slanderously doth deform it, yet I will here, as I have done diverse times before in answer to these Papists, profess, that we ascribe no supremacy to our Prince, but such as the word of God alloweth in the godly Kings of the old Testament, and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperors and Princes under the new Testament.  
First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power, in any Ecclesiastical causes, such as the Pope challengeth, but subject unto the rules of God's word. Secondly we ascribe no supremacy of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince, but affirm that she is to learn of the Bishops and teachers of the church, both in matters of faith and of the government of the church. Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings, that the Prince should presume to preach, to minister the Sacraments, to excommunicate, etc. which pertain not to her office. But the supremacy we admit in Ecclesiastical causes, is authority over all persons to command, and by laws to provide, that all matters Ecclesiastical, may be ordered and executed according to the word of God. And such is the true meaning of the oath, that he calleth blasphemous and intolerable. And as for examples of honour given to the Bishops by Christian Princes, which he bringeth forth, they deny not this supremacy, nor make any thing against it.  
The first is of the Emperor Philippus, counted of some for the first Christian Emperor, although it be not like to be true, yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so. This Prince without due repentance, offered himself to receive the holy mysteries, & being refused by the Bishop of the place, took it patiently, & submitted himself to the discipline & order of the church. I answer, this example toucheth not the authority he had in ecclesiastical causes. For in receiving of the Sacraments, the Prince differeth not from a private person.  
But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument, called a dilemma. If the Priest in these causes, be superior to that Emperor, other causes be greater or lesser than these. If they be greater, the Emperor which is not supreme governor over the lesser causes, can not be in the greater, if they be lesser, than the Priest which governeth the Emperor, in greater causes, must needs govern him in lesser causes. These horns are easily avoided not by distinction of the causes, but of the governments. The government of the Prince is one, & of the Priest an other: this spiritual, the other external, & therefore no contrariety between them. For put the case, that Philippus had seen the Bishop profane the sacrament, in ministering to infidels, or otherwise uncertainly behaving himself in his office, might he not justly have punished him, as supreme governor over the Bishop even in those matters? I say not to do them, but to see that they be well done, and to punish the offenders. Neither is the meaning of the oath any other. And according to this meaning, M. Nowell, M. Horn and M. jewel dare warrant the King to be supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes, although it please M. Saunder to say, the contrary of them. Whose traitorous quarreling upon the words of the oath, ought not to trouble any man's conscience, when the meaning is publicly testified both by the Prince, and by the whole consent of the church.  
The next example is of Constantinus the great, which in the Synod of Nice, when the Bishops had offered unto him bills of complaint, one against an other, without disclosing the contents of them, he said, as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes etc. God hath made you Priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also, and therefore we are rigtly judged of you, but ye can not be judged of men. For which cause, expect ye the judgement of God alone among ye. Here M. Saunder noteth, first, that he calleth them Priests, whereby he would prove, they had power to offer external sacrifice, which is a simple reason, for then all Christian men & women within the Scripture are called Priests, have the same power. Secondly he confesseth, they have power to judge the Emperor, for none can be greater than a Priest: In their challenge and spiritual government, the Emperor meaneth, and not as the Popish church practised, to dispose the Emperor. Thirdly, that Priests can not be judged of men. If this be so, one Priest can not be judged of an other, and where is then the Pope's supremacy, but he answereth, if one Priest judge an other, it is God's judgement, and not the judgement of men, because God hath set one Priest above another. O blockish answer: as though God hath not set one Prince above all his subjects. You see how Popish Priests advance themselves, to the honour of God, and withdraw their obedience from God's lieutenants on earth. An undoubted note of Antichristians. You will ask me then, what sense these words have, you can not be judged of men? I answer either they are meant, as Saint Paul speaketh, of the uprightness of his conscience in doing of his office, which is not subject to the judgement of men, or else Ruffinus as he was a bold reporter, frameth the emperors words, according to that estimation which he would have men to have of the clergy. For it is certain by records of Constantinus time, that he did judge Bishops and took upon him as supreme governor in ecclesiastical causes, Master Saunder confesseth, he judged certain Priests, or ecclesiastical causes, but he did it as Augustine sayeth, Epist. 162. as one that would afterward ask pardon of the holy Bishops, at the importunity of the Donatists: And as Optatus recordeth he said, Deschis. lib. 1. Petitis à me etc. Ye ask of me judgement in the world, whereas I myself look for Christ's judgement. And Augustine reproveth the Donatists that they would have an earthly King to be judge of their cause. In deed the importunity of the Donatists was wicked who would so refer the matter to the Emperor, that without knowledge of ecclesiastical persons, who were only meet judges in respect of knowledge in that case, they would have the cause decided. But the Emperor acknowledging his auctoririe appointed judges ecclesiastical persons, first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades, whom he commanded with other Bishops to hear the cause of Caecilianus, as Eusebius who ●ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca 5. And when the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome & his companions judgement, he appointed other delegates, as Augustine also witnesseth. Ep. 162.  
But to leave this cause of the Donatists Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him: Quoniam nonnulli variis locis inter se discrepabant, quasi communis quidem Episcopus à Deo constitutus, ministrorum Dei synodos convocavit, ne● dedignatus est adesse, & consider in illorum medio. Because some of them in diverse places were at variance among themselves, he as a certain general Bishop appointed of God, called together the synods of the ministers of God, and disdained not to be present, and to sit in the midst of them. And in lib. 3. He showeth how he gathered the universal synod of Nice, as it were leading forth the army of God to battle. To this Emperor did Athanasius the great, Bishop of Alexandria, appeal from the synod of tire, where he was injuriously handled, as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the very Epistle of Constantine himself unto that synod, commanding all the Bishops to come unto his presence, and there to show before him, (quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis, whom you can not deny to be a sincere minister of God) how sincerely they had judged in that council. Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth, that he will execute his supremacy in causes ecclesiastical. Omni virtute conabor ag●re quaten●s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliqu● titubatione seruentur quibus utique neque vituperatio neque mal● superstitio poteris implicari dispersis utique ac palam contritis, & penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis, qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diversos inijciant. I will endeavour with all my might to bring to pass, that those things that are in the law of God, those chief without any staggering may be observed, which by no reproof or evil superstition can be entangled, when all the enemies of the most holy law●, which under a shape of an holy name, do cast out diverse blasphemies unto sundry persons, are dispersed & openly trodden down, and utterly rooted out. Let this suffice to show what supremacy Constantinus did exercise in causes Ecclesiastical. Now Master Saunder draweth us to see, what honour he gave to the see of Rome.  
First he taketh it for most certain, that Constantine was baptized by Sylvester, which is an impudent lie and forged fable, as is manifest by Eusebius, who lived in his time and after him, who knew him familiarly, and affirmeth that he was baptized in his journey towards jordane, where he had purposed to have been baptized, if God had spared him life. But this manifest testimony of Eusebius, Master Saunder refuseth, because he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresy. Beside that he was unjustly suspected, what reason is it, to discredit his story, who wrote at such time, as many thousands alive could disprove him, for any affection to that heresy, whereto the baptism of Constantine pertained nothing in the world? As for the stones and pillars of marble, in which any such matter is graven, bearing the name of his baptistry except Master Saunder could prove, that they were set up in his time, are simple witnesses against the history of Eusebius, which lived in his tyme. Nether the forged pontifical of Damasus, nor the writings of Beda. Ado, Marianus, Gregorius Turenensis, Zonarus, Nicephorus late writers, following the fable of the Romish Church, are of any credit in respect of Eusebius, and the eldest writers of the Ecclesiastical story, that agree with Eusebius that he was not baptized many years after Sylvester was dead.  
And concerning the donation of Constantine, it is too absurd for any wise man to defend, which hath been so long before disproved by Laurentius Valla, no enemy of the Romish religion, although a discoverer of that fable. Again his forsaking of the city of Rome, and building of Constantinople, is as great a fable, for although he beautified Byzantium, and made it an imperial city, as placed conveniently to keep the oriental Empire, yet he forsook not Rome, but still retained it as the chief see of his Empire, so did the Emperors that followed him, until (after it was wasted by the barbarous nations,) they made less account of it. And therefore although Constans the Nephew of Heraclius could not conveniently remove thither, yet he removed from thence what he thought good, by which it appeared he had authority in the city, by the providence of God and not by chance, as M. Saunder dreameth, that he was prohibited by God's providence in respect of the Pope's supremacy, or else the world should be governed by chance.  
But leaving Constantinus the father, we must come to Constantius his son which was an Arrian, of whom Athanasius complaineth, that he had no reverence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit. again. nether considering that it was an apostolic see, nor that Rome was the mother city of the Roman Empire. There were other apostolics sees beside Rome, and the Christian world was larger than the Roman Empire, therefore this maketh nothing for the singular prerogative of that see.  
But the noble Emperors Gratianus, Valentinianus & Theodosius made a law, lege 1. Cod. de sum. trinit That all their people should continue in that religion, as the religion which is used from S. Peter unto this day doth declare him to have delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident that Bishop Damasus doth follow, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of apostolic holiness. This law proveth, that the Emperors had authority in Ecclesiastical causes. And that they joined the Patriarch of Rome with the Patriarch of Alexandria, not because he of Alexandria agreed with him of Rome, but because they both agreed with Peter, and Peter with Christ.  
From these Emperors, he cometh to Bonifacius, who writing to the Emperor Honorius, and humbly desiring his aid to appease the tumults of his Church, useth these words. Ecclesiae meae cui Deus noster meum sacerdotium (vobisres humanas regentibus) deputavit, cura constringit, ne causis eius quamuis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear, propter conu●ntus qui à sacerdotibus universis, & cl●ricis, & Christianae plebis perturbationibus agitantur, apud aures Christianissimi principis desim. The care of my church to which our God hath deputed my priesthood, while you govern the affairs of men, doth bind me, that although I am yet withholden by infirmity of body, I should not be wanting to the causes thereof in the hearing of a most Christian Prince, by reason of the meetings that are held of all the Priests and the Clergy with the perturbations of the Christian people. These words show, that the Emperor was supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical, for he writeth concerning the election of the Bishop. To whom the Emperor answereth making a law against the ambitious labouring for succession, that if two Bishops should be chosen, they should be both banished out of the city. Con. To. 1. & dist. 97. I have set down the words at large to show the shameful salsification of M. Saunder, who setteth them down absolutely thus. Mihi Deus noster mewn sacerdotium vobis res humanas regentibus deputavit. Our God hath appointed my priesthood to me, whereas you do govern worldly matters. As though he had denied to the Emperor, all government in Ecclesiastical causes, when he flieth to his authority in a cause Ecclesiastical, and doth not only acknowledge him to be a conserver of civil peace as M. Saunder would have it.  
To Honorius he joineth Galla Placidia the Empress in her epistle to Theodosius, set before the council of Chalcedon, Affirming that Peter ordained the primacy of the Bishoply office in the see apostolic. Thus wrote the Empress or her Secretary, and so it was taken in that time. The like saith Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father, that antiquity gave the chief●y of priestly power to the Bishop of the city of Rome. And Martianus with Valentinian confess that the Synod of Chalcedon inquired of the faith by the authority of Leo Bishop of the everlasting city of Rome. Add hereunto that the council itself confesseth Act. ●. that Leo was over them as the head over the members. All these prove in deed a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those days, but not such a primacy as is now claimed. For the same council and Emperors decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should have the same authority that the see of Rome had in the West, the title of seniority only reserved to the Bishop of Rome. Although the Bishop of Rome, Leo by letters and his legates in the council cried out against it as loud as they could. Cont. Chal act. 16. namely Lucentius cried. Sedes Apostolica etc., The apostolic sea ought not to be abased in our presence etc. but all the synod and the judges continued in their decree.  
The saying of justinian in cod de sum. trinit. is examined and answered in the 69. article of M. Sanders treatise which is the true Church, before his book of Images, as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara, of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and Gregory Bishop of Rome. The report of the council of Sinuessa is too full of corruption and confusion to be credited for authentical authority.  
And yet it is plain that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was convicted by witnesses to have committed Idolatry, before he confessed the sin, and received sentence of condemnation and accursing of the Synod, howsoever that patch is thrust in after the Acts of the council, prima sedes, etc. the first see is not judged of any, which in every counterfeit decretal epistle almost must have a place.  
To prove that Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all Churches, when the history is plain he did, M. Saunder bringeth in these and such like alledgged before, which acknowledged a certain primacy of the see of Rome. And certain it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas time, affected a great primacy, which of many was acknowledged, but yet never absolutely, never without controversy, until Phocas for a great sum of money received of Boniface the third, struck the stroke, and made the decree, for which in all popish writers he is highly praised: although in the Greek church his decree was not long observed. Touching the examples of Emperors and Princes of later times, although I could show they have often resisted the Pope, yet I know many may be alleged that have submitted themselves to his Antichristian tyranny, which I will not stand to examine, because they can be no prejudice to the truth approved by examples of the eldest age. As for the history of Lucius king of Britain, that sent to Eleutherius for preachers, if it were true, it maketh nothing for the supremacy of the romish Bishop. I will therefore conclude this chapter, with a saying of Socrates in pro. lib. 5. to show what authority he judged them perours to have in Ecclesiastical matters. Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur, pr●pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt, res Ecclesiasticae pendent, & maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia & congregatae sunt & congregantur. And in this continual history we comprehend the Emperors themselves, because that upon them, since they began to be Christians, the matters of the Church depend, and the greatest synods have been gathered & are gathered by their authority. The punishment he threatens to them that forsake the Church of Rome, shall one day fall upon them that take part with ● Church of Rome, as in part it doth already.   

The 17. chapter.  
THeir doctrine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be A●●ichrist 
Saunder.  himself is confuted by the authority of God's word, and by the consent of ancient fathers. Why Antichrist is permitted to come.  
AFter he hath showed his opinion, what manner a one 
Fulke.  Antichrist shallbe, & alleged ●●●● cause of his coming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them the working of error, that they may believe lying, etc. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants, for that they can find no place to settle Antichrist in, but in the see of Rome, so beautified & dignified by Christ, and all the primitive Church: But seeing Antichrist is appointed to sit in the temple of God, which is a higher place then S. Peter's chair, it is no marvel if Satan have thrust him into that see, which of old time was accounted the top and castle of all religion.  
But let us see his reasons taken out of God's word, by which it is proved, that the Pope can not be Antichrist himself. The first is, because in S. Paul he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. the man of sin which signifieth one singular man, and not a number of men in succession, and this is affirmed to be the Greek article in this word man, by Cyrillus in joan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how friendly Cyrillus was deceived, you shall see, by some examples, even out of the new Testament. In S. Matthew cap. 12. 35. you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth etc. where no one singular man is meant.  
In S. Mark cap. 2. verse. 27. The Sabbath was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man & not man for the Sabbath. In S. Luke cap. 4. verse. 4. Not with bread only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall live, but by every word of God. S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3. ver. 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to every good work. These places and an hundredth more which might be brought, do prove, how vain the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greek article. Nether is Hierom or any of the ancient writers to be heard without authority of the Scripture, which supposed that Antichrist should be one man. Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man, as Christ was. Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. saith we must not think that Antichrist should be a Devil, but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell. This proveth not that he should be a singular man, no more than the fourth beast, which signifieth the Roman Empire, out of which he should rise, should be one singular Emperor. No more doth it prove that because Antiochus was a figure of him, he must be but one man. And as little that Ambrose in 2. The. 2, saith, Satan shall appear in homine, in a man, which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person. Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince, and last Antichrist, meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last, may agree to a whole succession of men in one state, as well as the words king and beast, to a whole succession of Emperors in Daniel. To conclude, there is not one whom he nameth, that denieth Antichrist to be a whole succession of men, in one state of devilish government. And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Roman kingdom, lib. 5.  
The second argument is, that Antichrist is called the adversary, & therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ, denying jesus Christ to be God and man, or to be our Mediator. I answer, the Pope doth so, denying the office of Christ, although with the devils, he confess in words, jesus to be the holy one of God, and to be Christ the son of God. Mark 1. 24. Luke. 4. 41. his divinity the Pope denieth, by denying his only power in saving, his wisdom in his word to be only sufficient, his goodness in the virtue of his death to take away both pain and guilt of sin, which he arrogateth to himself by his blasphemous pardons. Christ's humanity he denieth by his transubstantiation, his mediation, in which he is principally Christ, he denieth by so many means of salvation as he maketh, beside Christ videlicet man's merits, ceremonies invented by man, pardons, a new sacrifice of the Mass, etc.  
The third argument is, that Antichrist shall not come, before the Roman Empire be clean taken away. For that which Saint Paul saith, ye know what withholdeth, etc. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Roman Empire, yet following the old writers that so understood it, I say the Roman Empire was removed before Antichrist the Pope was thoroughly installed. For beside that the see of the Empire was removed from Rome, the government itself was in a manner clean removed, the title of the Roman Emperor only remaining, at last an other Empire by the Pope was erected in Germanye, whereof little beside a name remaineth at this day, the Pope claiming authority of both the sword, and he that is the Emperor in title, if he have no lands of his own inheritance, scarce equal with a Duke by dominion of his Empire.  
The fourth argument is, that the deeds & doctrine of Antichrist against Christ, must be open and without all dissimulation, because Saint Paul maketh a difference between the mystery of iniquity, and the open showing of Antichrist. I answer, they are open to all faithful Christians, although they be hid from such as be deceived by Antichrist. Here M. Saunder answereth to that which he supposeth might be objected, that some gloss of the canon law, call the Pope God, or make him equal with Christ, yea they call him God above all Gods: but he thinketh to avoid it by saying, they call him not God by nature, but by office under Christ, where they say he is equal with Christ. This blasphemy will not so easily be excused. Nether is it to be thought that any man will ever call himself God by nature. But to omit these flattering gloss of the canon law, doth not the Pope exalt himself above all that is called God and worshipped as God. When he commandeth to abstain from meats and marriage, whereof God hath created the one and instituted the other, as good and holy, for greater goodness and holiness than God created or instituted in them. Doth he not exalt himself above God the redeemer, when he affirmeth his redemption to be, either only from sins committed before baptism, ●or only from the guilt of sin whereas his popish pardons can absolve from both. Doth he not extol himself above God the holy Ghost, when he taketh upon him to sanctify the creatures of the world, otherwise than God hath sanctified them to apply the merits of Christ, otherwise then God's holy spirit worketh application by faith, etc.  
The 5. argument is, that Antichrist should be received most specially of the jews, of which he bringeth the opinion of diverse old writers, but because the Scripture saith no such thing, but contrary that he shall sit in the Church of God. We deny the antecedent or proposition of this argument. But M. S. allegeth the saying of Christ joan. 5 I came in my father's name, and ye have not received me, if another come in his own name ye will receive him. This other man saith M. S. is Antichrist, and so expounded by the ancient fathers. I answer they have no ground of this exposition. For Theudas the Egyptian, Cocabas, and such like, deceived the jews in their own name, yet none of them was this Antichrist.  
The 6. argument is, that Antichrist according to the prophecy of Daniel cap. 7. & the interpretation of Hierom, shall subdue 3. kings, the kings of Egypt, Africa, and Ethiopia, which seeing the Pope hath not done, he is not Antichrist, I answer, Nether Hierom nor any Ecclesiastical writer, whom he followeth, hath any directition out of the Scripture, for this interpretation, wherefore it is more like, that the Emperor is the little horn which first diminishing as it were a third part of the strength of the fourth beast, at length began utterly to oppress & destroy it, I mean the common wealth of Rome.  
The 7. reason is, Antichrist shall prevail in his reign but 3. years & an half, Dan 7. which time the Apocal●se calleth 42. months. I answer, this time must not be limited by measure of man, but as God hath appointed it. Daniel nameth no years, but a time, times, & half a tyme. And Hierom in his account of 1293 days differeth from S. john Apoc. 12. 6. who setteth them down 1260. days.  
The 8. reason is, that Helias shall come at the time of Antichrist, as Hippolytus, Augustine, Hierom & Theodoret teach, who is not yet come, although the Pope have long flourished. I answer, The Scripture speaketh of no coming of Helias, but of Christ's two witnesses, which have never failed in the greatest heat of the popish tyranny. Apoc. 11.  
The 9 reason is, that Antichrist shall be of the try be of Dan, by the ●●inion of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Theodoretus, and Gregory, whereas the Popes are of no such ●ribe. I answer, the Scripture hath not revealed any such matter, nether doth Irenaeus rest upon that opinion, but judgeth he may well be the king of the Roman Empire, saying very wisely. Certius ●rgo & sine periculo est sustin●re ad●●pletionem prophetiae, qua● susp●car● etc. Therefore it is more certain and without danger, to tarry the fulfilling of the prophecy, then to surmise etc. Again if this opinion should be true, he should not rise out of the Roman Empire, as all old writers have consenced he must, according to the prophecy.  
The 10. argument is, that Antichrist shall not come before the later end of the world as August ne and Theodoretus judged. but Gregory seeing the ambition of john of Constantinople affirmed, that the time of the revelation of Antichrist was even at hand, and that the same john was the forerunner of Antichrist, and Antichrist should shortly be revealed, & an army of Priests should wait upon him. Now seeing he, whosoever took that which john refused, by Gregory's judgement should be Antichrist, and it is certain, that Pope Boniface the 3. soon after the death of Gregory and his successors, usurped not only that, but more also, it is certain by Gregoryes prophecy, that the Pope is Antichrist. Who being within the 600. years, answereth to M. Sanders fond challenge. And although none within that compass had pointed out the see of Rome, yet the fulfilling of the prophecy in the later times, did sufficiently declare who it should be. And most of the ancient writers name Rome to be the see of Antichrist. Although they could not foresee that the Bishopric of that see should degenerate into the tyranny of Antichrist. M. Saunder answereth, that Tertullian and Hierom, call Rome Babylon, because of the confusion of tongues of di●ersenations, that haunted thither in time of the Emperors. And the Rome was full of Id ●any, and did persecute the Saints and namely more t●●n 30 Bishops of Rome. The reason of tongues is very absurd, and not given by any of those writers. As for Idolatry and persecuting of Saints, although it might be said in time of Irenaeus, and Tertullian, yet could it not be said in the days of Hierom, Augustine, Ambrose, Primasius, and a number that lived in time of the Christian Emperors. And whereas Hierom ad Algasiam, expoundeth the name of blasphemy written in the forehead of the purple harlot to be Rome everlasting, it agreeth very well unto the see of the Popedom, which they boast to be eternal, although the Empire of Rome shall be clean taken away. For M. Saunder himself liketh well the title given by Martianus and Valentinianus to Leo, whom they call Bishop of the everlasting city of Rome. cap. 16.  
But whereas Rome is the city builded upon seven hills, spoken of in the Apocalypse cap 17. M. Saunder counteth it a childish argument, to prove the see of Antichrist to be there, for that the city is now gone from the hills, and standeth in the plain of Campus Martius, and the Pope sitteth on the other side of the river, upon the hill Vatican hard by Saint Peter's Church, by whom he holdeth his chair, not at all deriving his power from the seven hills, etc. But if the Pope sit now in an other Rome, than Peter the Apostle sat, how will Master Saunder persuade us, that he fitteth in the chair of Peter. For that Rome where Peter sat, was builded upon seven Hills, and not gone down into the plain of Campus martin's, nor over the River. Beside this it is plain, that although the people have removed their habitations from the hills, yet the Pope hath not, for on them be still to this day his Churches, monasteries, & courts. For on the Mount Caelius be the monastery of saint Gregory, the church of john and Paul, the Hospital of our Saviour, the round Church, the great Minster of Laterane, in which are said, to be the heads of the Aposiles Peter and Paul, and the goodliest buildings in the world, where the Bishops of Rome dwelled until the time of Nicolas the second, which was almost eleven hundredth years after Christ.  
The Mount Aventinus, hath three Monastetyes, of Sabina Bonifacius, and Alexius.  
The Mount Exquilinus, hath the Church of Saint Peter himself surnamed Ad vincula.  
The Mount Viminalis hath the Church of S. Laurence in Palisperna, and S. Potentiana.  
The Mount Tarpeius or Capitoline, hath an house of Friars Minors called Ara Coeli. And there did Boniface the ninth build a fair house of Brick for keeping of Courts.  
The Mount Palatinus, is a place called the great Palace, and hath an old Church of S. Nicolas and of S. Andrew.  
The Mount Quirinalis is not altogether void of habitation, to which appertaineth the Church of S. Maria de populo.  
The city with 7. hills is still the see of Antichrist, described by S. john at such time as those 7, hills were most of alinhabited & garnished with sumptuous buildings. But M. S. to darken the prophesy saith, Those 7. hills be the fullness of pride in secular princes, to whom the Protestants commit the supreme government of the church. I will not speak of this contumely that he bloweth out against christian Princes, neither will I stand to prove that 7. hills in that place are taken literally, which is an easy matter because 7. hills are the exposition of 7. heads of the beast, but how will M. S or all the Papists in the world deny the city of Rome to be that Babylon and see of Antichrist, When the Angel in the last verse of the chapter saith, And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which hath dominion over the Kings of the earth: which if any man say was any other City than Rome, all learning and learned men will cry out against him. The see being found, it is easy to find the person by S. Paul's description, and this note especially that excludeth the heathen tyrants, he shall sit in the temple of God, which when when we see to be fulfilled in the Pope, although none of the eldest fathers could see it, because it was performed after their death, we nothing doubt to say & affirm still, that the Pope is that man of sin & Son of perdttion, the adversary that lifteth up himself above all that is called God, and shallbe destroyed by the spirit of the Lords mouth, & by the glory of his coming.   

The 18. Chapter.  
NOT the Pope of Rome, but the Protestants themselves are the members of antichrist, by forsaking the Catholic 
Saunder.  Church, by setting up a new Church and by teaching false doctrine against the Gospel of jesus Christ. Heretics depart from the Catholic Church. Heretics being once departed out of the Church, have new names. Why among the Catholics some are called franciscans, Dominicanes, etc. Heretics can never agree The short reign of Heretics. Heretics preach without commission. Heretics do prefer the temporal reign or sword before the spiritual. They are the members of Antichrist, who withstand the external and publke sacrifice of Christ's Church. Heretics deprive Christ of his glorious inheritance in many nations together. The intolerable pride of Heretics, in making themselves only judges of the right sense of God's word. The Protestants teach the same doctrine which the old Heretics did. The Protestants are the right members of antichrist, in that they sporle Gods Church of very many gifts & graces & articles of the faith.  
HE maketh 11. marks of an Antichristian. The 1. is. 
Fulke,  They depart from the church as all heretics do. I answer, the Protestants have not departed from the Church of Christ, but are gone out o● the Church of Antichrist, according as they are commanded by the holy Ghost ●poc. 18. 4. & are returned to th●●h●●ch of Christ, which by the Pope & the d●uill was driven into the wilderness, Apoc. 22. 6. But M Sand would have the place named, where they dwelled, from whom the Pope departed, as though the place were material, when his depa●ture from the doctrine of Christ, is manifest.  
And Saint Paul prophesied of the great Apostasy and departing from Christ, which Antichrist should make. 2 ●hess 2. to himself & his own doctrine, as Irenaeus doth expound it. ●●b. 5. & Basi. Ep. 71. which all nations peoples & tongues should embrace. Ap●●. 18. 3. therefore it were no marvel, if no place could be named, altogether void of the insection of Ant●christ, especially seeing the Church herself was driven into the desert, that is out of the sight of men. yet there is no donbt, but God preserved his Church, though in small numbers, both in the East & in the West. And namely one part of the Church of God was in Britain, both in Wales and Scotland, not subject to the Pope, nor acknowledging his authority, at such time, as Augustine the monk came from Pope Gregory, & so con●nued long after the revelation of Antichrist. Bed. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 25. And no doubt but the like was in many corners of the world.  
The 2. mark of an Antichristian he maketh, to have new names after they be gone out of the Church, as, Lutherans, Zwinglians, etc. whereas they have none but Catholics, yes verily, the name of the Popish Church & Papists, is as ancient as the name of Luther & Lutherans, & more ancient to. M. Sand. saith we give them these names of spite, eight or nine hundredth ye●res since the papacy Began. The like I say of them, who call us Lutherans etc. of mere malice, when we are nothing but Christians, wherefore the trial must be in the doctrine, which either sort profess, and not in names.  
The Christians of the Arians were called Homousians, Athanasians. etc. but the doctrine of the Catholic Christians agreeing with the words of God proved them to be no s●ctaryes nor Hetetikes, so doth our doctrine justify us what names soever be devised against us. But Ma●ster Saunder would have us to show a man, whose proper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretics were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came, and not of proper names of men. Angelici, Apostolici, Barbarita, Cathari, Collyridiani, En●ratitae, Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresy, Cataphryges, Pepuzianis and such like were called of the place where they were. Wherefore the name of Papists and romanists agreeth ●ith the example of old heretics. As for the long tarrying, large spreading, and strange commng in of the Popish heresy is therefore without example, in all points like, because Ant●christ is not a common pettit heretic, but the greatest and most dangerous enemy that ever the Gospel had.  
The names of Benedictines, Fraunciscanes etc. Master Saunder would excuse, because these sects maintain no doctrine, dissenting from the Pope, but all seek the perfectiou of the Gospel by diverse ways, as though there were any other way but jesus Christ. Saint Paul 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter, of Paul, of Apollo, when the Doctrine was all one, and counteth them schismatics, that so did. And the purer P●imatiue church, condemned such apish imitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing, in abstaining from Marriage etc. for Heretics, and called them Apostolicos, witness Epiphan. Cont. Aposto. haer, 61.  
The third Mark of an Antichristian, is, dissagreement among Heretics: and here not content to charge us with the dissagreeing of anabaptists from us, he amplysieth the dissension between Luther and Zwinglius, about the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, for which contradiction, he thinketh it must needs follow that one of them is an antichrist.  
I answer every error stifely maintained, maketh not an Heretic, except it be in an article of faith necessary to salvation.  
Cyprian against the bishops of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius, held an error in Baptism, as great as that same of Luther, dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lord, yet is not Cyrpian accounted for an Heretic. Master Saunder replieth and sayeth, that Cyprian was not so stubborn, that he would excommunicate them that held the contrary.  
Luther also and Zwinglius, although they could not be reconciled in opinions, yet agreed to abstain from contention, at Marpurge Anno domini. 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Master Saunder saith, further, that in the contention of Cyprian, and Stephanus, the Catholic Faith was not fully and universally received in any general Council. But he forgetteth that the bishop of Rome was one party, whose judgement should have ended the strife if his authority had been such then, as he usurped most ambitiously afterward.  
Now where as he defendeth the Papists for their unity, which he sayeth, could not be with out the spirit of God, I answer he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes, where is greater unity than ever there was among the Papists: who to omit an hundredth small contentions of the schoolmen, are not yet agreed, of the greatest question of all, whether the Pope be above the council or the council above the Pope. For seeing some of the Papists, make the Pope's determination to be the rule of truth, other make the council, there is no unity among the Papists in truth, when they are not agreed what is the only rule of truth: whereas we all agree, that the word of God is the only rule of truth, whereby we would have all doctrine tried and examined.  
The fourth mark of an Antichrist, is, to reign but a short time, and here he would have us to mark how Luther's kingdom is come to an end, whose doctrine Melancthon hath changed although Illyricus would defend it. What deep root the doctrine of God delivered by Luther, hath taken, it is so well known, that it can not be dissembled. Neither hath Melancthon departed from him, except it were in his opinion of the real presence. Wherefore this is a great impudence, to triumph over the decay of Luthets doctrine, which daily increaseth, to the overthrow of the Popish kingdom.  
The fall of Hosiander an heretic, no man either marveleth or pitieth. The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Caluine teacheth, as every wise man doth know, and their learned works shall live and be in honour, when the Pope's decretals and his Mass books etc. shall stop mustard pots, and be put to viler uses.  
Neither is calvin's doctrine failed, by our oath of supremacy, for Caluine in the right sense of it, taught the same supremacy of Christian Princes which we swear to acknowledge, in our sovereign.  
Neither doth Beza teach any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell, then Caluine did, nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalm, cited in Acts the 2. then Caluine doth, as all men that will read them both may see, notwithstanding the shameless cavil of M. Saunder.  
The long continuance of the Popish kingdom, is a small cause to brag of, when it being sound enemy to the kingdom of Christ, is now entered so far into destruction, out of which it shall never escape, although Master Saunder saith it doth flourish, when it is banished out of so many regions and daily decreaseth in every place, God's holy name be praised therefore.  
The fift mark of Antichrist (he sayeth) is to preach without commission, as Luther did, who was sent of none. I answer in the state of the church, so miserably deceived, as it was in his time, God sendeth extraordinarily, immediately from himself, as Helias & Helizaeus & the Prophets were sent to the jews & Israelites, which were not of the Priests & ordinary teachers, so Christ sent his Apostles and Evangelists. And so was Luther and such as he sent to repair the ruins of the church. And yet the Papists have small advantage against the calling of Luther, seeing he was a Doctor, authorised to preach in that church, where he first began, which after he had reform the abuses thereof, and restored true doctrine in many points banished, by the false doctrine of Antichrist. The same reformed church hath ever since sent forth ordinary pastors and teachers and shall do to the end of the world.  
The sixth mark of an Antichrist is, that heretics prefer the temporal sword before the spiritual. And therefore Antichrist shall by force of arms compel men to a new faith, for he shall come as S. Paul sayeth in virtute, that is to say in power or strength. O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture, doth not Saint Paul say that his coming shallbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power & signs and lying wonders, & in all deceitfulness of unrighteousness, 2. Thes. 2. by which is showed seduction by false doctrine, but he shall maintain his kingdom by cruelty, as it is manifest in the Revelation cap. 13. & 17. etc. But M. Saunder hath a great quarrel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his book against Feckenham, that the civil Magistrate, may visit, correct, reform and depose any Bishop in their own realm. Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in God's church, than the power of a Bishop. And what inconvenience is this, in things pertaining to his office, seeing that the Bishop's power in his spiritual office of preaching ministering etc. is confessed to be above the King? Hereby we make the body above the soul (saith M. Saunder) the temporal reign above the kingdom of heaven. Not a whit, no more than Solomon in deposing Abiathar, & Christian Emperors in deposing proud Bishops of Rome. Only this we say, that M. Saunder dissembleth. The cause must be just, for which ● King should depose a Bishop or pastor, for! think there is equal right in deposing of the greatest Bishop, & the poorest Priest from his benefice. This latter was always lawful by the common laws upon just cause. Now if the cause be just, it must be either manifest or doubtful. If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murder, treason, adultery, etc. the King observing the process of the law, as in all other men's causes, may proceed against a Bishop. If the cause be doubtful, it is either for life or doctrine. The trial of the Bishop's life, aught to be as all other men's are, with due consideration of his accusers. The trial of doctrine is not in the King's knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the ecclesiastical state, who are judges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge, & to depose him from his ministry by reason of their calling, if he be culpable, and the King hath power to exclude him from his place & from his life also if his offence deserve it. But that in spiritual matters the King should rule the Bishops, & pastors otherwise then God's word would have them ruled, none of us did ever affirm: for that were tyranny & not Christian government. And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperor, doth Athanasius complain: In Episi. ad sol. vit. agent. and show the judgement & answers of the Christian Bishops, Paulinus, Lucifer, Eusebius, Dionysius, Liberius, Hosius, unto him, when he would have enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius, for defending the eternal divinity of our Saviour Christ.  
But yet the same Athanasius, appealed, himself, to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great, although in the end the Emperor being carried away by multitude of false witnesses, as any mortal man may be, & deceived, as David was about Mephibosheth, gave wrong sentence against him Socr. lib. 1. ca 34. And when the same Emperor in his letters before, threatened to depose him, if he were disobedient, he never repined but acknowledged his authority. Si cognovero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris, aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris, mittan evestigio qui te meo jussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat. If I shall know (saith the Emperor) that thou wilt prohibit any of them that favour the church or exclude them from entering into the church, I will send one immediately which shall depose thee by my commandment, & remove thy place. Socr. li. 1. ca 27. Thus Athanasius judging Constantius the heretical Prince for an Antichristian image, in usurping authority in matters of faith against the truth, obeyeth Constantinus a defender of the truth, & seeketh aid of his authority in ecclesiastical causes, according to the truth: M. Saunder fearing we would object against him that Constantinus, Martianus, & other godly Emperors, used to sit in general counsels with the Bishops, replieth, that it was only to keep peace, whereas they did not only keep peace, but also prescribe & command the Bishops, to proceed according to God's word as Constantine did in the Nicene council. Euangelici enim etc. The books of the Gospels & of the Apostles & the oracles of the ancient Prophets do plainly instruct us in the understanding of God. Therefore setting all hateful discord aside, let us take out of the sayings of God's spirit, the explication of the questions. They did also publish the decrees of the council by their authority, like as they called the councils together to make their decrees.  
But Ambrose saith Ep. 32. that even an heretical Emperor coming to years of discretion, will be able to consider, what manner a Bishop he is, who layeth the Priestly right under the lay men's feet. By which (saith M. Saunder) you may see what manner a Bishop M. Horn and his fellows be, which give the most proud & intolerable title of supreme head & governor, to lay Princes. I answer in giving this title, they mean to take nothing from the right of the clergy, & confess with Augustine, that there is no greater than a Priest in his office, although Moses after the distinction was no Priest, but a civil Magistrate & in his calling above Aaron, that was high Priest. And although M. Saunder say, this is the divinity of England only, to acknowledge the Prince to be chief governor, he sayeth most untruly, for all learned men of all countries, do acknowledge the same, in such sort as we do in England, and not as he in Flanders, either dreameth or slandereth us to do. For we confess with Valentinian the good Emperor, that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor, in matters pertaining to his spiritual power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allow the same Valentinian writing to the Bishops of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis etc. They which study by their prayers to drive away all hurtful devels, know to submit themselves to public offices, according to the laws, they speak not against the Emperor's power, but they keep the commandments of a sincere and great Emperor, and the commandments of God, and are subject to our laws, but you are found disobedient. Finally we never meant, to give the Prince by flatterien, authority in such matters as belong to Bishops alone, neither would we have a confusion, of the office of an Emperor and a Bishop, wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius, nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretics & would enforce men to receive the heresy of Arrius, doth any thing at all touch us, who limit the supremacy of Princes, within the compass of God's word, and Christian religion, against which, neither Prince nor Priest hath any authority to command.  
The seventh mark of Antichrist is, the withstanding of the external and public sacrifice of the church, by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Mass. Nay rather it is a setting up of a new altar & sacrifice propitiatory, against the only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death once offered, by which one oblation he hath made perfect for ever, them that are sanctified Heb. 10. The auctor of this sacrifice, which is the Pope, he is in deed Antichrist the son of perdition.  
But Master Saunder for proof of the sacrifice of the Mass, allegeth the prophecy of Malachi cap. 1. with 16. fond comparisons of the defects of the jews, and the perfection of the Gentiles, which he affirmeth to be the uniform interpretation of the ancient fathers, of whom no one denieth the body and blood of Christ to be here meant, albeit some of them expoundeth this prophecy of prayers and inward righteousness which are always joined with the unbloody sacrifice. I answer no one of the ancient fathers, understandeth this prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, otherwise then of a sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, for proof whereof, I must refer the reader to mine answer to M. heskin's lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. 35. & 36. where he shall find the places of the Doctors set down, which are by M. Saunder in place only quoted.  
But one other strange reason of M. Saunder to prove the sacrament of the Lords supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory, I may not omit because I remember not that I have read it before. Every public and external fact which is made by God's authority to put us in mind of that grea● sacrifice, once fulfilled on the cross, m●s●e also be partaker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a remembrance. As if the kill of a Calf, which signified the death of Christ, was an external sacrifice, how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ being made of bread and wine, to signify his own death be a public and external sacrifice.  
This reason M. Saunder maketh no small account of. But how beastly an absurdity his principle is you shall easily perceive, if you consider, that Baptism is a public and external fact made by God's authority, to put us in mind of the death and bloodshedding of Christ, yet no man was ever so mad, to say baptism is a sacrifice. Again the Calf that was killed was by God's appointment a sacrifice of the only & singular sacrifice of Christ's death, & not by virtue of the signification, for the jews had other ceremonies than sacrifices, which did signify the death of Christ: But the Lord's supper is not by God's appointment a sacrifice, therefore the signification cannot make it so.  
The 8. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist, is to spoil Christ of his inheritance, which God gave him in all nations, as the Protestants do, Which for 8. or 9 hundredth years, can not show any nation, town or village, church or chapel in the wide world, where they had public prayer. I answer, seeing the spirit speaketh expressly, of a general Apostasy, and of the flying of the Church into the desert, it is no more derogation to the inheritance of Christ, that his Church among many nations was in persecution under Antichrist for 7. or 8. hundredth years, then that the same was in persecution under the heathen Emperors, for 300. years and more. For the nations were then the inheritance of Christ, in as glorious wise as when the Church flourished in outward peace under the Christian Emperors. Yet was there towns & countries, not only in France, Italy, and Germany, but also in the east part of the world, great nations, among which Christ had a visible Church, which were never subject to the church of Rome. If M. S. reply that they held some errors which we deny, as prayer for the dead etc. I answer, holding the only foundation jesus Christ, they might be true Christians, although they were infected with some such errors as these.  
The 9 Mark of Antichrist is, intolerable pride, to make himself judge of the sense of God's word, and of the text also. I allow this mark, & it agreeth to none that ever was so aptly, as to the Pope, whom the Papists affirm, that he can not err in the sense of the Scripture, who affirm that he hath authority to receive & reject what books of Scripture he wil But M. Saunder saith this note agreeth to us, and that we make ourselves judges of the sense of God's word, and of the text. But we utterly deny that: for we make the spirit of God in his word, judge of the interpretation. No saith M. Saunder, & bringeth an example of these word's of S. Paul. He that joineth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that joineth her not doth better. Here upon (saith he) we ground this doctrine, Virginity is a better state and more acceptable to God, than the state of marriage. This we grant in some respect, as the Apostle speaketh, but not simpyl. The question is of these words, he doth better what is meant thereby: M. Saunder chargeth us to say, that S. Paul meaneth he doth better in the sight of the world, which is an impudently, and therefore all his foolish dialogism, is a fight with his own shadow. Beza expoundeth he doth better that is more commodiously, not in respect of the world, but in respect of godliness, for the reasons before alleged by S. Paul, & S. Paul himself is auctor of this interpretation verse 35. of that 7. chap. 1. Cor. This I say for your commodity, when he exhorteth to virginity. And that his purpose was not absolutely and simply, to prefer virginity above marriage, as a thing of itself more acceptable to God, it is plain by these words. First he saith, of virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord. But he hath a commandment, to prefer those things that are most acceptable to the Lord. Secondly he saith: I suppose this to be good for the present necessity, by which words he doth imply, that it is not always & absolutely better, but at sometimes & in some respects, for them that have the gift of continence, and for none other. So we hold virginity to be better than marriage, according to the meaning of the best ancient writers, whereof some were too great extollers of virginity, yet not like the Papists.  
But M. Saunder sayeth the Protestants make them selves judges, not only of the meaning of God's word, but also of the books themselves. For they reject not only the book of wisdom, Toby & the Maccabees, with other such books, but also the Epistle of S. James. Nay rather the Pope is Antichrist, for receiving these books of Wisdom, Toby, Maccabees, which were never received of the church of the Israelits, nor of the universalchurch of Christ for Canonical Scripture, as I have often showed. And as touching the Epistle of S. james, it is a shameless slander of him to say, that the Protestants reject it, but we must hear his reason. First Luther calleth it a strawen Epistle. So Luther called the Pope supreme head of the church, and the Mass a sacrifice propitiatory, if Protestants be charged to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repent. But the confession of Zurich with the consent of the churches of Helvetia and Sabaudia, writeth thus, of it. jacobus ille dixit etc. That james said, that works do justify, not speaking against Saint Paul, otherwise he were to be rejected. Here saith M. Saunder, they think it possible, that S. james might be contrary to Saint Paul, and so his Epistle to be no holy Scripture. A wise collection I promise you. S. Paul himself said. If I myself or an Angel from heaven, should preach any other Gospel than you have already received, let him be accursed. Ergo S. Paul thought it was possible, that himself or an Angel should be auctor of a new Gospel, & so his preaching should not be the Gospel. Who seethe not the madness of this consequence.  
But S. james his epistle (he saith) hath always been clearly admitted among true Catholics, & for witness hereof he quoteth most impudenly Euseb. lib. 1. ca 23. in which book and chapter, Eusebius clearly affirmeth that it is a counterfeit epistle. I say not this to allow the judgement of Eusebius, but to show the impudency of M. Saunder. But he saith we reject S. james because he is contrary to our devilesh doctrine of only faith. We teach only faith none otherwise, them the apostle teacheth, that a man is justified by faith, without works. We teach not that a man is justified by a dead faith, which is void of good works, but by a living faith which worketh by love. We say with Saint james, if a man say he have faith and hath not works, his faith shall not save him. For Abraham's faith, which was imputed to him for righteousness by God, was not without good works, as appeared by his obedience in offering his son, wherein God tried him, neither to know him, nor to justify him, whom he knew and justified before, but to show his obedience & to justify him before men. So it is true that S. james sayeth a man is justified of works and not of faith only. For a solitary srutles faith doth not justify before God, but a faith which is fruitful in good works is the only instrument to apprehend justification, and the works as Augustine saith follow and show a justified man they go not before to justify. Thus our doctrine agreeth very well with the Epistle of S. james & Saint Paul's doctrine, wherefore we have no need to reject the Epistle of Saint james, as contrary to our doctrine.  
But the Protestants do not only make themselves judges of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) of Christ's Gospel finding fault with the construction of the Evangelists, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke 22. of the words: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. In which text, because the word blood in the Greek, is the dative case, the other word that followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that S. Luke useth a figure called Soloecophanes, which is appearance of incongruity, or else that the last word which is shed for you, might, by error of writers, being first set in the margin out of Matthew & Mark, be removed into the text. Hereupon M. Saunder out of all order & measure, raileth upon Beza & upon all Protestants. But I pray you good Sir, shall the only opinion of Beza, & that but a doubtful opinion, in dite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation? Forsooth the Greek text is contrary to his Sacramentary heresy. For thus he should translate it: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which cup is shed for you. Not the cup of gold or silver (saith he) but the liquor in that cup, which is not wine because wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why then the sense is this. This blood in the cup which is shed for you is the new Testament in my blood. What sense in the world can these words have? By which it is manifest, that the words which is shed for you can not be referred to the cup, but to his his blood. For the cup was the new Testament in his blood, which was shed for us, which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin translation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this. Hic est calix nowm Testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur. What grammarian in construing, would refer qui to calix and not rather to sanguine. Again Erasmus translateth it even as Beza. Hoc poculum nowm Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis ●ffundit●r. Now touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by error of the scrivener, might be removed from the margin into the text, is a thing that sometime hath happened as most learned men agree, in the 27. of Matthew where the name of jeremy is placed in the text, for that which is in Zachary, & yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Evangelist, as in most ancient records it is testified. The like hath been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation, for that which is cited out of Malachi which name was not set down by the Evangelist, but added by some unskilful writer, & is reproved by other Greek copies. But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy, as Beza confesseth: then remaineth the second opinion, that S. Luke in this place, useth Soloe cophanes which is an appearance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherein I can not marvel more at your malice (M. Saunder) then at your ignorance, which put no difference between soloecismus & soloecophanes, but even as spitefully as unlearnedly, you affirm that Beza should teach, that S. Luke wrote false Greek, whereas Soloecophanes is a figure used of the most eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and even of S. Luke himself in other places, whereof for examples, I refer you to Budaeus upon the word Soloecophanes. The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the nominative case, should agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the dative case, whereas in deed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as a relative for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is often, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek tongue, and so the translation must be hoc poculum nowm Testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, or effusus est. So that this is nothing else, but an impudent and unskilful quarreling, against Beza, whereas you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, & the practice of the primitive Church, the communion in one kind of bread only Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21.  
The tenth mark of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist, which are heretics. To agree with them in heresy is a point of Antichristianisme, I confess, but not to agree with them in any thing. For every heresy affirmeth things that are true. But let us see in what points of heresy he chargeth us to agree with the old heretics. First Eunomius said, that no sin should hurt him, if he were partaker of the faith which he taught, so the Protestants say of their faith. Yea sir, but their faith is not Eunomius faith, & yet they say not that no sin shall hurt them, but no sin shall condemn them: & so say you Papists of your popish faith.  
Secondly Acesius the Novatian Bishop affirmed, that mortal sins committed after baptism, might not be forgiven of the Priest, but of God alone. The Protestants deny the Priest to have any right to forgive sins. This is a loud lie & false slander, for we hold that the minister of God, hath authority to forgive all sins, that God will forgive, according to the power given to them joan. 20 But you Papists agree with the heretic in this point, that you deny the Priest to forgive all sins according to the power given, but have your casus Episcopales & Papales, by which you abridge the power given by Christ.  
Thirdly, the Messalians denied that baptism doth pluck up the root of sins, the same is the opinion of the protestāns. The Protestants have none opinion common with the Messalians, who affirmed that our own merits & satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking up the root of sins, whereas we affirm, that baptism saveth us according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiveness of our sins, whereby even the root of sin is plucked up, although concupiscence remain after the act of baptism, which you Papists also confess to remain & to be the root of sin, although you grant it not to be sin. But we limit not the effect of baptism, to the time passed before the act of baptism only, as you do, but extend it to our aeternal salvation: he that believeth & is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this & in your continual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeys, agree with the Messalians.  
Fourthly, AErius taught, that we must not pray for the dead, nor keep the accustomed fastings, & that there is no difference between a Priest & a Bishop. The superstition of praying for the dead, was justly reproved by AErius, so was the fast of custom and decree rather than of consideration, for the first that prayed for the dead were heretics, Montanists, as Tertullian & his sect, the first that made prescript laws of fasting, was Montanus the heretic also, as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio, affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God.  
Fifthly, jovinian judged virginity equal with marriage, so do the Protestants. I have showed before how it is equal, and how it is superior.  
Sixtly, S. Hierom reproveth Vigilantius of heresy, for denying prayer to Saints, and giving honour to relics. For praying to Saints, there is no mention in S Hierom, the immoderate honouring of relics was justly reproved, and yet it was not then the one half of that it hath been since. Hieronym, although he rather rail then reason against Vigilantius, as ●rasmus hath noted: yet he descendeth not the adoration or worshipping, but the reverent estimation of relics.  
Seventhly, the Arrians would not believe the consubstantiality of the same, because that word was not written in the Scripture. So do the Protestants deny many things upon the like pretence. This is a mere slander. for we stand upon the sense of the Scripture, and not the words only.  
Eightly, Eusebius noteth it for an heinous impiety in Novatus, that he was not consummate with crisme, which the Protestants call greasing. In deed Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Novatus was baptized in time of necessity being very like to die. jacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit, nec reliqua in eo qu● baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt: nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit: unde nec spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri. Lying in his bed according to the necessity he was baptized, nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptism solemnly fulfiled, neither was he consummate with the seal of Chrism: whereby he could never obtain the holy Ghost. First I say this is noted as no impiety in Novatus, but as a defect of necessity. Secondly that the Chrism which Cornelius speaketh of, was either a seal of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which in some remained in the Church until that time, or else he magnifieth that ceremony intolerably: to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not, being none of the institution of Christ, and contrary to that the Papists themselves hold at this day.  
ninthly, Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monks, so do the Protestants. Nay they punish none but filthy, idle, Idolaters, and hypocrites.  
Tenthly, the Montanists and Luciferians said there was a stews made of the Church. They said so falsely when the Church was chaste. but Isaiah say the truly: how is the faithful city become an whore, when the Church of Israel was so in deed.  
eleventhly, the Donatists said the Church was lost from all the world, & preserved only in Africa. So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all parts of the world, and raised up again in Germany. The Protestants say not so. For the Church hath been scattered over the face of the earth, since the first preaching of the Apostles unto this day. But the Papists say that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserved only in a part of Europe, when of all parts in the world only a part of Europe, which is the least part of the world, was subject to the Church of Rome.  
Tweluethly, the Seu●rians used the law and the Prophets, but they perverted the sense of the Scriptures by a certain peculiar interpretation of their own. So do the Protestants. Nay so do the Papists, that submit all understanding of the Scripture, be it never so plain, to the interpretation of their Pope, and popish Church: as the commandment of Images forbidden, and the cup to be received of all, do most manifestly declare.  
Lastly, it hath always been a trick of jews and heretics to be still in hand with translating holy Scriptures, that by changing they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side, as Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus. So do the protestāns now. Hieronym was no heretic, yet did he translate the Scriptures both into Latin and into the Dalmatian tongue. And the Papists have played the part of Antichristian heretics, to confirm the vulgar Latin translation, which is so manifestly corrupt and false, contrary to the truth of the Hebrew and Greek texts upon pretence of avoiding uncertainty of translations, whereas there is none so bad as that.  
I might here run through a great number of the old heresies, in which the Papists consent with the ancient Heretics. The Valentinians in their cross. montanists in their purgatory, and prescript fastings. Carpocratians in their images. The Hemerobaptists in their holy water. The Offenes and Marcosianes in their relics and strange tongue in prayers. The Heracleanites in anointing them that are ready to die. The Caians in praying to angels. The archontics in their counterfeit monkery. The Marcionists in extolling virginity & fasting, & in permitting women to Baptize. The Enctatits in abstaining from flesh. The Apostoliks in their vow of continence. The Cyrians in worshipping the virgin Mary. The Pelagians in their opinion of merits and free-will. The Eutychians in denying the truth of Christ his body. The Anthromorphites in making Images of God, and many other, but that I have done it elsewhere, more at large. But of these, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others are witnesses.  
The 11. and last mark is, that Antichristians should go about to make void, and deny the supernatural graces which God hath given to his Church, so that the seal of Antichrist by Hippolitns judgement should be Nego I deny. So do the Protestants which deny five sacraments of the church, the sacrifice of the Mass. etc. And so maketh rehearsal of a greatnumber of popish errors, which indeed we deny, because they be contrary to the truth of God's word. Among which he rehearseth some false and shameless slanders, as, that we deny our sins to be taken away by the Lamb of God, saying they tarry still but that they are not imputed. In deed, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But we say all the sins that we have, are taken away, when they are not laid to our charge.  
Secondly he chargeth us to teach, That no justice is at all made in us by spreading charity in our hearts, Whereas S. Paul saith Rom. 5. many shallbe made just: but they say only that justice shall be imputed. We say with Saint Paul Rom. 5. that being justified by faith we have peace with God, rejoicing in hope, which doth not confound us in the midst of afflictions, because the love of God is powered forth in our hearts. I mean the love of God toward us, and not our love toward him. We say likewise with Saint Paul, that by the obedience of one which is Christ, many shallbe made righteous. But how can we be made righteous by obedience of Christ, but that his obedience is imputed and made perfect unto us? O putide and absurd slanders.  
He chargeth us thirdly, that we deny Baptism, to remit our sins, which is false, except as Saint Peter denieth the work wrought to save us. 1. Pet. 3. verse 21. not the washing of the filth of the body, but the answer of a good conscience unto Almighty God.  
Fourthly, he chargeth us to deny that Baptism is necessary to Children, which are borne of christian Parents wherein he lieth most impudently: although we agree not with the Papists that the Infants of Christians excluded by necessity from Baptism, are damned. In which error although Augustine was, yet he is no more to be followed, then in an other error, about the same infants, to whom both he and Pope Innocentius thought the Sacrament of the lords Supper as necessary as the Sacrament of Baptism, affirming that Infants which have not received the lords Supper were damned. Contra duas Episto. Pelag. ad Bonifac. lib. 2. cap. 4. Ecce beatae memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptisino Christi & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi vitam non hobere paruulos dicit. Behold Pope Innocent of blessed memory sayeth, that without the Baptism of Christ, and the participation of the body and blood of Christ, little Children have no life.  
To conclude, we deny nothing that they can prove to be true, but such matters as we prove by the only rule of truth to be false. But the Pope showeth himself to be Antichrist, which denieth all the sovereignty of the office and prerogative of Christ.  
He denieth that Christ is the only head of his universal Church in Heaven and in earth.  
He denieth that Christ only is a Priest, according to the order of Melchizedech.  
He denieth that Christ only is our Mediator, aswell of intercession, as of redemption,  
He denieth that Christ's word is sufficient for our salvation.  
He denieth that the sacrifice of Christ his death is the only purgation of our sins.  
He denieth that the merits of Christ are our only justification.  
He denieth that God only is to be prayed unto.  
He denieth the verity of Christ's body by his transubstantiation.  
Finally he denieth all honour and glory to be dew only to God by jesus Christ, and therefore he is none other, but even that detestable monster antichrist whom I beseech the Lord, speedyly to confound and abolish by the spirit of his mouth which is his holy word, and by the brightness of his coming.  
Amen.   
God be praised.