Papistomastix, OR THE PROTESTANTS Religion defended.  
Showing briefly when the great compound heresy of Popery first sprang; how it grew piece by piece till Antichrist was disclosed; how it hath been consumed by the breath of God's mouth: and when it shall be cut down and withered.  
BY WILLIAM MIDDLETON Bachelor of Divinity, and Minister of Hardwicke in Cambridge-shire.  Luk. 16.31. 
If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead again.  
AT LONDON, ❧ Printed by T. P. for Arthur johnson, and are to be sold at his shop near the great North door of Paul's, at the sign of the white Horse. 1606.   

Venerabili viro D. Humfredo Tendallo Collegij Reginalis apud Cantabrigienses Magistro, reliquisque socijs eiusdem Collegij amicis & fratribus in Domino obseruandis.  
PApistomastix iste meus, me penè invito & reluctante, se offert patrocinio vestro, nam cùm probè conscius sine meae tenuitatis, nolui proprio judicio tanquàm sorex perire, verùm cùm ex adverso intelligam vos, tanquàm apes bonarum artium, aculeos gravitatis clementiae melle temperatos gestare: appareat per me licet, & se velo vestrae humanitatis operiat, ne minorem curam religionis, quàm famae & existimationis habuisse videar. Missus est ad me Dialogus iste ab alumno veteri collegij vestri, cuius nomen argenteo poculo incisum apud vos manet, nec id modò, sed ab eodem etiam sum rogatus ut futilibus argutijs personati nescio cuius Papistae responderem. Ideoque adhibui eam, quam in adversa valetudine potui, diligentiam; ut manus remissas, & soluta genua erigerem, & rectas orbitas facerem pedibus eius, ne claudus deflecteret de via, sed sanaretur potiùs, Si mihi quoque, in hac lucta, manus, pedes, & genua defuisse videantur, vestrae humanitatis erit Mineruae meae, quam Dei providentia rusticanam esse voluit, non modò dare, sed alijs etiam, si qui forti iniquiores futuri sunt, veniam extorquere. Aeternus Deus, pater Domini nostri jesu Christi, vos, fratresque vestros, quos Academia peperit, ecclesia nutrit innumerabiles, ita fulciat spiritu sancto suo: ut patentes papistarum gulae, occlusae tandem & constrictae, sorbere simul & flare, vorare & vomere nec possint, nec audeant.  
Vester in Coelesti ministerio conseruus qualiscunque Guiliel: Middleton.   
jerem. cap. 5.26. 
Among my people are found wicked persons that lay wait, as he that setteth snares, they have made pits to catch men.  Tertull. de prescript. adverse. heretic. 
Auolent quantùm volent paleae levis fidei quocunque afflatu tentationum; eò purior massa frumenti in horrea domini reponetur,  
Let the chaff of a wavering faith, fly away as far as it will with every puff of temptations, so shall the grain that is laid up in the Garner of the Lord, be the purer.  jerem. cap. 8.17. 
Behold, I will send serpents and cockatrices among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall sting you, saith the Lord.  Tertul. de prescript. adversus haereticos. 
Haeretici firmos fatigant, infirmos capiunt, medios cum scrupulo dimittunt, Heretics weary the strong, catch the weak as in a snare, and the middle sort they leave scrupulous.   

The Fore-speech of Master I. S. to the Author.  
IT was my chance (good Master M.) not long since to be encountered by a learned Gentleman in the controversy between the Papists and us, whose arguments I could not answer, to my great grief, and offence of divers there present; I than wished your presence, and still desired your help for my delivery out of that Labyrinth whereinto he brought me. I know that Quaedam falsa maiorem habent speciem probabilitatis, quàm quaedam vera, (as the Philosopher saith,) and therefore I writ not this as wavering in my faith: for who so shall stagger for every argument whereunto he cannot make a learned solution, must either be a profound Clerk, or of no faith at all; but for my better satisfaction, and preparation unto the like encounter, let me entreat ut mihi lumen de tuo lumine accendas. For accomplishing whereof, I will refer you to the discourse following, wherein for avoiding of the tedious repetition of inquam, and inquit, I have set down his oppositions under the name of Pa. And my Answers thereunto under the name of Pro.  

The Author's Answer.  
SIr, I see no cause yet, why I should think otherwise of you, than I have done ever since I first knew you. We were brought up both together in the same University the same College, the same Chamber, and under the same Tutor, and it hath pleased you ever since to acknowledge me as one of your poor friends, and so have I acknowledged you as my christian brother; and therefore my full trust in the mercy of God is, that now in our age, after so long trial one of another, Popery shall not be able to part us. The Gentleman that encountered with you, hath showed little learning, and less wit in this encounter, but if every finger and toe that he hath, could write books, and every hair of his head, speak parables: yet Rome will fall do what he can, and the ruins of it shall never be re-edified. It is your modesty that makes you unfit, but not unable to answer such popish garrulity, & that cannot grieve you, if you be wise, nor offend other, unless they be fools, turbantur quia non illuminantur, saith Austin, and therefore they that find themselves troubled with such blind arguments, as this Gentleman of yours doth afford us, may well be thought to have little light in them: do but look over my answer, & confer my inquam, with his inquit, without partiality, and then a God's name feed in that pasture you find best fenced. God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ so guide and strengthen you and your family against jezabel and her Prophets, that when your day of reckoning shall come, you may answer cheerfully with the prophet Esay, Lo, here am I, and the children which God hath given me.    

The preface to the godly Christian Reader.  
GOod Christian Reader, though the carcase of Popery, 
Cosmog.  the better to avoid the heat of truth, sit down and shadow itself, like the Sciopodes in Munster, with one great leg of traditions: yet will it not be amiss, if I slit or cleave that one great leg into two, namely, Traditions in general, and the Romish primacy in particular, that it may stand up the better to thy view, and so make a more open show of it own ugliness.  
Touching the first, I am not ignorant how eagerly the ancient Fathers be urged upon us, and how easily their authority may be avoided, as being no fast friends to Popery in this argument: yet, me thinks, the children of Abraham should hear the words of their own Father, rather than any other father that ever put pen to paper, namely, they 
a Luk. 16.29, 31.  have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. And again, if they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.  
What will the Papists, nay, what can they, or any man else living say to this? will they tell us that Moses and the prophets be hard to understand, and that they contain not an absolute and full doctrine of life and death, unless they be peeced out with traditions? I am sure the rich glutton in hell durst not say so much, & yet it is to be presumed that he would have said so, if he had not understood that it was not worth the propounding in Abraham's presence; thus much he was bold to reply to the first part of Abraham's speech, nay, father Abraham, but if one come to my brethren from the dead, they will amend their lives, but the second part which exclusively refers them to Moses and the Prophets, doth so stop his mouth, that he had no whit further to plead for his own brethren. It may be marveled that he spoke nothing, neither of the imperfection of the scripture, nor of jewish traditions, nor any such thing, but only of such apparitions from the dead; verily, if any such plea had been of any moment, he would not have failed to do his best endeavour for his brethren, and to put Abraham in mind of the imperfection of his answer.  
Howbeit, that which he then durst not do, is thinking it to be little worth, is now propounded and urged by the Papists the Sons and heirs of the rich Glutton, who even in despite of Abraham, presume to reply, that it is not enough to hear Moses and the Prophets, and that they will hear such as rise from the dead. Oh, take heed of such desperate fellows as these be, that regard not the doctrine of Abraham, and make themselves wiser now in shifting off the force of his speech, than Hell itself was in the days of our Saviour, belike hell was not so wise then, as it is now, for now our Popish Gluttons can tell us new tales of the darkness, of the imperfectness, of the ambiguity, of the corruptions of the Scripture, they can prate of traditions, and unwritten verities which are not to be found in Moses and the Prophets: howbeit, let him that hath any regard of his salvation consider with himself, whether is the surer and the safer way to believe them, or to believe Abraham, for it is impossible to believe both.  
Captain Stapleton 
b Lib. 12. Cap. 8.  tells us, after this wise manner, that it is one thing [to hear Moses and the Prophets,] which Abraham requireth, and another thing, [to hear them only:] but what doth he else in so doing, but show himself more impudent than the Devil, who, when our Saviour saith in Matthew 
c Math. 4.10. & Luk. 4.8. , It is written, thou shalt worship thy lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve, durst not be so saucy as to tell him, that it is one thing to serve God, as it is commanded in 
d Deut. 6.13. & 10.20.  Deuteronomie, and another thing to serve him only, I am sure Cyprian 
e Lib. 2. epist. 3. , where God himself from heaven 
f Math. 17 5.  saith, Ipsum audite, is bold to add the word, solum, twice together in one place, yet never durst any quarreling heretic tell Cyprian, as Stapleton tells us, Aliud est Mosen & Prophetas audire, aliud solos audire, It is one thing to hear them, and another thing to hear them only; but to be short, do but look the words of Abraham 
g Cap. 16.29.31.  in Saint Luke's Gospel, and consider of the circumstances with an upright religious heart, and then blame me if thou find not that the word only, may as rightly be added here in Luke, as either Christ or Cyprian have added it in Matthew.  
Stapleton goeth on still, and beareth us in hand against Abraham, that if Moses and the Prophets, were only to be heard, than the new Testament should be excluded as superfluous; but by Stapletons' good leave, that's neither so, nor so, for 
h Deut. 18 15.  Moses himself willeth us to hear Christ in all things whatsoever he should say unto us, so doth 
i Act. 3.22  Peter teach us out of Moses, and 
k Act. 7.37.  Saint Stephen likewise witnesseth, that Moses said unto the children of Israel, that the lord their God should raise up unto them a Prophet whom they should hear, therefore Moses in the old Testament hath taught us to hear Christ in the new; and if thou make question of the writings of the Apostles, 
l 2. cor. 5.19.20.  Paul saith, they were the Ambassadors of Christ, and preached the word of reconciliation in Christ's stead: if this yet stop not Stapletons' mouth, then let him know that the new Testament is not an addition, but an exposition of the old, but such an exposition as all the world together could not have made without the extraordinary inspiration of the spirit of Christ: and here, for the full determination of this point, hearken (I pray thee) what their own Lyranus tells them in his Commentaries upon Luke, Habent Mosen qui docuit moralia & agenda, habent prophetas qui docuerunt mystica & credenda, & ista sufficiunt ad salutem, ideò sequitur, audiant illos, They have Moses (saith he) who hath taught moral things that ought to be done, they have the Prophets, who have taught mystical things that ought to be believed, and these be sufficient to salvation, therefore it followeth, hear them.  
Thus is the doctrine of insufficiency of the scripture, and necessity of Traditions condemned to death, and must go to the place of execution, unless a better pardon be sued out for it, than any that ever I could yet see registered in their Popish Chronicles; howbeit, we have not yet done with this question of traditions, for there is no man so careless of his salvation, that will set up an Altar to these unknown fictions, as 
a Act. 17.23.  the Athenians did to the unknown God, before he know how many they be, how few they be, what they be, and so consider with himself deliberately, whether they be fish, or flesh, or good red herring; herein than we call upon them for resolution, and it is good reason we should so do, till we know whether they dream, or lie waking.  
This makes a sort of them to uncase slovens, & absurdly to confess themselves to be no better than heretics, 
b Lib. 3. ca 3. fund. 4.  Canus a great Papist tells us out of Origen and Hilary, that Moses did not write the secrecies of the law, but delivered them to joshua by Tradition, and so infers, that the Apostles committed the secrecies of the Gospel by tradition to a few wise and perfect men. And Bellarmine, as great a Papist as lives this day, 
c Bellar. de verbo non script. lib. 4 Cap. 8.  concludes out of Paul, that all things are not to be opened to all, but some things must be 
d 1. Cor. 2.6.  reserved, perfectis & sapientibus; yet I doubt whether any such perfect wise men are to be found in the world. O you perfect wise men of Rome, or of Rheims, or where else soever you nestle yourselves in the world! can your perfect wisdoms do so much for us, as to set down these Traditions in black and white in a perfect Catalogue, that if any controversy arise about this or that tradition, your black and white Book may resolve us? No, no, you cannot do it: and therefore you tell us you may not do it in the hearing of such simple fellows as we be, because Paul hath commanded the contrary; Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, is your warrant to hide these mysteries from such poor fools as we be. But wot you what? this very allegation shall be our warrant to pronounce, that you are perfect wise heretics, such as Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Valentinus, and Martion: look in 
e Iren. lib. 1. cap. 23. & 24. & lib. 3. cap. 2.  Irenaeus and 
f Tertul. de prescript. adverse. haeret.  Tertullian, and there you shall find that I do not belie you 
g Math. 10 27. ; our Saviour willeth his Disciples to speak in the open light, and to preach on the tops of the houses, and himself confirmed this plain and open dealing by his own practice 
h joh. 18.20. , [I spoke openly to the world, saith he, I ever taught in the Synagogue, and in the temple, where the jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing.]  
These places be inanswerable, and therefore some that be less wayward in this point than their fellows, as for example, 
i Adverse. Brent.  Petrus à Soto, 
k In Catech. cap. 5.  Canisius, 
l In Pan. lib. 4. cap. 100 & in fine fabulae. 6.  Lindanus, 
m part. 3.  Peresius, and others, reckon up a jolly company of traditions, as namely, [the oblation of the sacrifice, their annealing, their praying to the dead, and for the dead, their primacy of Rome, their hallowing of Fonts, their five pretended Sacraments, the Merits of Works, their satisfactions, their tallying up of their sins to the Priest, their worshipping of Images, their set-fasting days, their holy time of Lent, their oblations for the dead, their Peter's being at Rome, their real presence, their half Communion, their reservation and adoration, their private mass, their shrifts, their satisfactions, their indulgences, their purgatory, their single life of Priests,] and such like, of which they say, like downright Squires, that they are not grounded upon the holy scripture, and that by scripture they cannot be defended; and so saith this our Papist of most of them even in 
n Sect. 5.  this Dialogue, and therefore howsoever they trouble us with some few lightfooted allegations of Scripture: yet their own consciences tell them, that the Scriptures will fail them in all these several questions. wouldst thou know then what remaineth to be done? Mary I will tell thee, let all their rich Gluttons in hell, or out of hell, dead or alive; nay, let the Devil himself say, and do what they will or can, yet we will, and so do thou, follow the counsel of Abraham; we will, and so do thou, hear Moses and the Prophets, as he teacheth us, and not such as will us to repose our trust in unwritten and unsealed Traditions.  
And here, to pass over to the other point I promised to speak of, let it please thee to remember, who was the first founder of Traditions, namely, Papias a Chiliast, whom 
o Hist. eccles. lib. 2. 15. & lib. 3. 36.  Eusebius calleth, a publisher of Paradoxes, and strange and fabulous doctrines, an inconsiderate mistaker of the disputations of the Apostles, and a man of small judgement, yet this is the man that laid the first stone of Peter's being at Rome, and so consequently of the Papal Primacy, and where Peter 
a 1. Pet. 5.13.  saith, the Church that is at Babylon saluteth you: this is the first that ever told us that he means Rome, a worthy foundation, no doubt, to build religion upon, and yet when he saith that [Rome is Babylon,] he puts us all in mind to 
b Apo. 18.2.4.  come out of Rome, the habitation of Devils, and the hold of all foul spirits, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.  
And here it is a world to see how the Papists labour to avoid the force of this, and such like Prophecies. This (say they) must be meant of the heathenish, not of the Christian Babylon. And I say again, it neither must nor can be so meant, for who will yield, that Saint john should set down that by way of Prophecy, which was prophesied already by 
c Cap. 7.  Daniel long before either Saint john was banished, or Christ was incarnate? Again, if happily Daniel be otherwise understood, why should the holy ghost speak of the City of Rome, rather than Corinth, Philippos, Colosse, Thessalonica, great Cities of Greece? or of Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, to which 
d Cap. 1.4.  the Revelation is dedicated? or the City of Ephesus, where it is thought Saint john was Bishop? were not all these Cities as heathenish as Rome, and better known to Saint john so to be, than Rome was? What? was Saint john made a Prophet to speak against heathenish Rome which he never saw, nor came near to, and no prophet at all to speak of the heathenishnes of so many Cities that he had seen so often, and was so well acquainted withal? Moreover, if this might be yielded unto, yet why should heathenish Rome be figured in the person of a gaudy scarlet coloured whorish woman, and be counted the mother of all the filthiness, whoredoms, and abominations of the earth: whereas indeed there was never a more manly, and more continent government in the world?  
In the 
e Cap. 7.  prophecy of Daniel the chief Kingdoms and Empires of the earth, are described unto us by the names of Lions, & Bears, and Leopards, and strong, terrible, and fearful beasts with iron teeth & nails of brass; and shall we think that the most continent, most just, most strong, most terrible, and courageous government that ever was in the world, should be compared by the holy ghost to a fine dainty Dame, to a tender nice whore, to a proud shameless whore, that made open show of the filthiness of her Fornication? No, no, this very Book of Saint john's Revelation 
f Apoc, 13, 2.  doth compare the Roman Emperor to a Leopard with bears feet, and a Lion's mouth, and the Papists themselves do so understand it.  
And here observe, that beside the first beast which was like a Leopard, there is another there spoken of, which having two horns like a lamb, spoke like a Dragon, and did all the first beast could do, and more too, even in his sight and presence. Now, what can this second beast be, but the [Lamb skinned] & [Dragon tongued] Prelacy of Rome? and what other beast did the Roman Empire ever yield unto, but this only? whereof it followeth, that the first beast is not only the heathenish Emperors, but the succession in generality, for the heathenish never yielded any of their heads to be cured by the Romish Dragon; nay mark further where the 
g Apoc. cap. 18.  holy Ghost teacheth, that this first beast that hath seven heads and ten horns, is ridden by the scarlet coloured whore of Baylon, which cannot be understood singly of the heathenish Emperors, but generally of the Empire of Rome, which at length yielded his back to be saddled and ridden by that Babylonish Harlot, which 
h Cap. 19.20.  is afterward called a false prophet. Wherefore (as I said before) so I say again, come 
i Reu. 18.4  out of Babylon, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. O merciful Father, open our eyes that we may see the ugliness of Popery in the clear glass of thy holy word, and still teach us by the continual experience of thy gracious favour and protection, to take heed of the savage designments of the Romish Dragon. Hardwicke the 28. of januarie, 1606.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Lectorem.  
Corporis angusto mihi pes fuit alter in antro,  
Mens quoque vi socia corporis, aegra fuit  
Ne pigeat tamen hunc librum percurrere, patris  
aegroti sanus filius esse potest.  
Debilis aura vias solet exiccare palustres,  
Et lapides magnos guttula parva cavat.    

The Contents.  
Sectio. 1. 
Questions touching the Church, Scriptures, Fathers, and Traditions in general by way of Introduction.  Sectio. 2. 
Of the Lord's day, eating blood, marriage within degrees of affinity, polygamy, and punishming theft; whether they be determined by scripture, or Tradition.  Sectio. 3. & 4. 
Of Traditions in general.  Sectio. 5. 
Whether the Fathers, holding certain points of Papistry, be therefore excluded out of our Church.  Sectio. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 
Of praying for the dead.  Sectio. 11. 12. 13. 14. 
Of Purgatory.  Sectio. 15. 16. 17. 18. 
Of Transubstantiation.  Sectio. 19 
Of prayer to Saints.  Sectio. 20. 21. 22 
Of vowing chastity, and Priests marriage.  Sectio. 23. 
Of the errors of the ancient Fathers.  Sectio. 24. 
Of justification by merit of our own works, and the superabundant works of the Saints.  Sectio. 25. 
Of free-will to merit heaven.  Sectio. 26. 
Of the power of the keys over the quick and the dead.  Sectio. 27. 
A Conclusion containing certain general inducements, that Popery is the true way that leadeth blind men and fools to heaven, so as they cannot err: and that our Religion is an inexplicable Labyrinth, that hath no direction, which is plain blasphemy against God the author and inspirer of the Scripture.    

A BRIEF ANSWER to a Popish Dialogue between two Gentlemen; the one a Papist, the other a Protestant.  

The Dialogue. Sectio I.  
PApist. Do you believe the Catholic Church planted first by the Apostles in judaea, and afterward dispersed through the whole world, which Church hath ever since remained on earth, and shall so continue until the second coming of Christ? Protestant. All this I do believe. Pap. Are the Protestants of this Church, or the Papists, or both? Pro. The Protestants only. Pap. Have you any outward means to persuade you, that the Protestants are only of this Church, or are you moved thereunto by inspiration only? Pro. The inward means is the spirit of God; the outward is the canonical Scripture. Pap. This inward means lieth hidden in your own breast; but how do you by this outward mean discern the true Church? Pro. That church which doth teach & practise the doctrine contained in the canonical Scriptures, is the true Church of Christ: contrariwise, that church which in matters of faith, teacheth 
a Wittingly and wilfully.  any doctrine repugnant, or not grounded upon the same word, is an heretical Church, & a synagogue of Satan. Pap. The Scriptures, you say, are the outward mean for discerning of the true Church, have you some outward means to discern the canonical Scriptures, or do you know them by inspiration only? Pro. The outward mean is the uniform 
b There be other outward means, beside the consent of antiquity.  consent of all antiquity. Pap. You do then receive the testimony of ancient writers for the discerning of the canonical Scriptures, why do you not likewise believe that the Apostles did leave many things to be observed in the Church by tradition without writing, seeing that the one and the other is confirmed by the like uniform consent of ancient writers? Pro. The Scripture is the sure rock whereon to build our faith, wherein all things are contained necessary for our salvation.  

The Answer.  
IT is a common saying, that such as do deficere in extremo actu, fail in the last act, are foolish Poets; but whether they be foolish Divines, or no, that fail every where beginning and ending and all, judge you; and that you may do it the better, observe I pray you, how untowardly this popish Divine gins to lay his foundation, that you may the better judge of the whole frame of his building. The word [Catholic] is taken three manner of ways; first, for that which is opposed to heretical or schismatical, as Ecclesia Catholica, the Catholic Church, and Ecclesia Martyrum the Church of the Martyrs, 
Haeresi. 68  in Epiphanius. Secondly, for that which is opposed to the Church of the jews, for such a signification hath the word [Catholic] in the inscription of Saint james his Epistle. Lastly, for the general fellowship of all the children of God elected and adopted in Christ jesus before the foundations of the world: for none else can be the members of the body of Christ: 
Eph. 1.23. & Colos. 1.24.  and in this signification it is taken in our Creed.  
Now it would be known, which of these significations is meant in the first question, the first signification restraineth the word [Catholic] to particular Churches, & it is not like that your Papist demandeth, whether you believe this or that Church in particular. Again, the second opposeth the word [Catholic] to the church of jury, whereas your Papist includeth the church of jury, before there was any other church any where planted: in his question, saying Do you believe the catholic Church, planted first by the Apostles in judaea, and afterward dispersed etc. The last signification is applied to the Saints of God predestinated to salvation, 
2. Tim. 2.19  which Church was never planted by the Apostles, but by the eternal decree of God who only knoweth who are his.  
Again, I can hardly brook that the Church is here said to be first planted by the Apostles, for God had his Church ever from the beginning; or that it hath remained ever since the Apostles planted it, for it hath remained ever from the beginning: now if it be said, that he meaneth the Church under the Gospel; 
Rom. 15.8. Heb. 2.3.  it will trouble him to prove that the Apostles were the first planters of that Church in judaea, seeing Christ himself was minister of the circumcision, and first began to preach salvation before it was confirmed by them that heard him.  
Moreover, that the Church was ever dispersed through the whole world by the ministry of the Apostles, is sooner said than proved; for though Paul say, that the fall of the jews was the riches of the world, yet doth he not mean the whole world simply without exception, no more than Saint Luke doth when he saith that Augustus Caesar decreed that all the world should be taxed; 
Luk. 2.1. Math. 28.19. Luk. 24.47. Mark. 16.15. Act. 16.6. etc. 2. Cor. 10.13. etc.  and so must we understand all Nations in Matthew and Luke, and all the world and every creature in Saint Marks Gospel: for though the words be general, and without limitation, yet the Apostles were kept in, and guided more particularly by the holy Ghost.  
Lastly, it would be agreed upon, what faith or belief your Papist meaneth, when he saith, Do you believe the catholic Church, whether justifying or historical? For though he seem to fetch his question out of the Creed, wherein the articles of justifying faith are recorded, and so to make the catholic Church invisible, for faith is the evidence of things not seen: 
Heb. 11.1.  yet when he addeth planted by the Apostles in judaea etc. he maketh it visible, and so not to be believed. Wherefore though this first question have neither head nor foot; yet thus in charity I conceive of it, that it demandeth, whether we believe historically that there were orderly Churches or companies professing catholic doctrine taught by the Apostles first among the jews, and then among the Gentiles, which profession and professors shall continue in one place or other to the world's end; if this be the question, then have you answered catholicly, first that you believe this, and then secondly that the Protestants only are the visible and known members of God's church. Now where it is demanded in the third and fourth place how we know this, whether by outward means, or by inspiration: it is answered, that the canonical word of God doth so testify, and better witness than this we desire none; and touching this word of God, the Papists grant all those books to be canonical, which we call canonical, though they add other Books which we admit not for grounds and foundations of faith: but if we cannot make good our profession by those books which both sides agree upon, and by the same books overthrow all that the Papists hold against us at this day; then I for my part, will soon yield to the Pope, and crave absolution upon my knees.  
Now forsooth the discerning of these canonical Scriptures is called into question, and they must be subjecteth to the infirmity of man: howbeit your answer, though it be true, yet is it insufficient; for howsoever, the uniform consent of antiquity is not to be neglected: yet as our Saviour saith, 
joh. 5.36.  that he had greater witness than the witness of john; so hath the holy Scripture greater witness than the witness of the Fathers, namely, the purity and incontrolled antiquity of it, the Majesty of the style, the conformableness of the precepts thereof to the law of nature, and divers other outward means noted by Master Caluine in his Institutions; 
Lib. 1. Cap. 8.  otherwise it were hard to tell how the men of Beroea, and other ancient Christians discerned the Scripture in the Apostles time and after, 
Act. 17.11.12  before any one of the ancient Fathers was borne, or had written a syllable: and here-hence it is easily gathered how vain the sixth question is, for traditions are not confirmed by such pregnant evidence as the Scriptures are, but hang in the wind upon the conceits of men, which may be deceived, and therefore a Christian man may well believe the one, though he neglect the other; 
Rom. 1.16. Heb. 4.12. 1. Cor. 2.4. 1. Cor. 14.24.25. Luk. 24.32.  the powerful working of the word of God described by Saint Paul, and the Author to the Hebrews, and the Disciples of Christ in Saint Luke's Gospel are sufficient witnesses to the soul, that Traditions which have not the same image and superscription, may be refused as the commandments and doctrines of men.    

The Dialogue. Sectio II.  
PA. Do you not perceive, that by this description of the Church, you have given two mortal wounds unto your own cause? first you have excluded the Protestant and Puritan out of the Church by you described; and secondly, you thrust out all the ancient Fathers, and Doctors that ever flourished in the Church since the Apostles time? Pro. The wounds you speak of (surely) are not mortal, for as yet I feel them not. Pap. They will prove sensible when they come to the searching; first you have excluded the Protestant and Puritan, who hold many points of Doctrine not 
a These points are warrantable by Scripture, as it shall appear.  warranted by the Scriptures, as the observation of the Sunday, in stead of Saturday which was the Sabbath of the jews; that Christians may eat blood (notwithstanding the decree of the first general Council to the contrary:) that a christian Magistrate may punish theft with death, which in a jewish Magistrate was a breach of the commandment; that it is a greater offence in a christian to have Concubines, and many wives, than it was in David, who notwithstanding was a man according to Gods own heart; that Christians should be tied unto the law prescribed unto the jews for marriage within degrees of affinity, and not unto the like law prescribed to the brother, to raise up seed unto his brother dying without issue. For all which you have no warrant out of the scriptures. Pro. For all these points of Doctrine, we have sufficient warrant out of the book of God; and first concerning the Sabbath of Christians it is evident in the 20. of the Acts, that the Christians did assemble themselves the first day of the week to hear Paul preach, and to break bread; likewise in the 16. Chapter of Saint Paul's 1. Epistle to the Corinth's, it appeareth that Saint Paul did ordain in all the Churches of Galatia, that collection should be made for the poor, upon the first day of the week, where he doth also exhort the Corinthians to do the like upon the same day: whereby it is evident that the Sunday was appointed by the Apostles to be the Christians Sabbath, which is nothing else but a day of rest from labour, and a day to be bestowed in hearing the word preached, breaking of bread, whereby is meant administration of the Sacrament, giving of alms, and other works of devotion and piety: for proof whereof, out of the places above alleged, I do draw this argument against you: That day wherein the Apostles did ordain, that Christians should weekly meet together to exercise themselves in hearing the word preached, receiving the Sacrament, and giving of Alms: that same day did the Apostles ordain to be the Sabbath of Christians: but the Apostle did ordain that Christians should weekly assemble themselves upon the first day of the week for the purposes before mentioned: therefore the Apostle did ordain the first day of the week to be the Christians Sabbath. Pap. I deny the Mayor, for (that being granted) if the Apostles did appoint more days in a week than one for Christians to assemble themselves for the like Christian exercises, by the same argument you 
a Non sequitur. Look the answer.  may likewise prove two Sabbaths in one week; and no doubt those Christians, who lived together in the fellowship of the Apostles, sold their possessions, and had all things common, That 
b is not their intent. Act. 2.45.  to the intent that they might be wholly employed in the service of God, had more days than one in a week appointed for that purpose. Your Minor proposition also, which is, that the Apostle did ordain that Christians should assemble themselves upon the first day of the week, etc. is false, & not warranted by either of the places of scripture by you alleged. In the 20. of the Acts, the first day of the week is not prescribed unto Christians, as a day whereon they ought to assemble themselves for the service of God, but there only mention is made that the Disciples were assembled on the first day of the week to break bread, and that Paul (intending to departed on the morrow) continued preaching till midnight. Let us 
c Admit what you will, yet the first of the week is the ordinary appointed day.  admit that Saint Paul was to departed on the Tuesday, and that the Christians were assembled on the Monday to break bread, and to hear Paul preach before his departure, might not I in this case, make as strong an argument, to prove Monday to be the Christians Sabbath, as yours is for the Sunday? In the 16. Chapter of Saint Paul's 1. Epistle unto the Corinth's, the Apostle doth prescribe the first day of the week unto the Corinth's, as a day whereon they ought to lay aside for the poor as their devotion shall serve; it is not preaching, prayer, or administration of Sacraments, that is in this place enjoined, but it is a laying aside for the poor. Why doth the Apostle enjoin this contribution for the poor to be made at that time? the answer followeth in the text, That there be no gatherings when I come: Why would the Apostle have no gatherings when he came? no doubt because he would not have such spiritual exercises, as he determined to bestow among them at his return unto them 
d Then this day was not only for collections, but for spiritual exercises. , hindered or impeached by such collections: if this were the meaning of the Apostle, then is it not like that he would appoint the Sabbath for the making of such collections, which is wholly 
e Not wholly, so as no time should be spared for collections.  to be employed in such spiritual exercises as he meant to use among them at his return, and therefore this place would better serve a wrangler to prove that the first day of the week was not appointed to be the christians Sabbath, than it will serve you to the contrary. Pro. Out of this place it may be gathered that the Christians, upon the first day of the week, did weekly assemble together, for there is no time so fit for collections, as general assemblies; and a weekly assembly upon that day doth manifestly prove it to be the Sabbath. Pap. You can wring no general assemblies out of that place, for the text saith, Let every one put apart by himself, and lay up, which argueth rather 
f Neither do we imagine, that all saw what every man gave, or took it from him, but he himself laid it up, as the rest did, in the common purse; else Paul must either gather it, or tarry the gathering of it, when he came.  a private laying up at home, than a contribution in an assembly, as your marginal note in the English Bible interpreteth: for how can a man be said to lay up that which he doth deliver to another in such a contribution? Pro. It appeareth in the first of the Revelation, that in Saint john's time, the first day of the week was called the Lords day, which is as much as if he had called it the Christians Sabbath. Pap. You shall find in that Chapter, that Saint john was in the spirit on the Lords day, whereupon you may conclude, that in Saint john's time one day of the week was called the Lords day, which we do grant; and more than that, that the first day of the week was then called the Lords day, (which would have put you to your shifts to have proved out of the word) yet have you gained nothing: for what consequent is this, the first day of the week was of the Apostles called the Lord's day, therefore the jews Sabbath is to be abolished, and the first day of the week is to be observed for the Sabbath of Christians? might not the first day of the week be called the Lords day in regard of Christ's resurrection, and yet the jews Sabbath remain, or be abolished, as other of their ceremonies were, without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof? Or will you rather reason thus; Saint john could be in the spirit but on the christians Sabbath only, Ergo, the first day of the week is the Sabbath of christians if this be your? argument, you do but clawm clavo pellere, for when you shall have proved your antecedent by the word, then will I grant the consequent, and as easily may you prove the one as the other: but let it be admitted, that you can prove by scripture, that the Christians were enjoined by the Apostles to assemble themselves weekly upon the Sunday, to join together in prayer, & hearing the word preached: yet what word have you to prove, that 
g Neither do we say, neither can you prove it is.  all bodily labour is unlawful upon that day? they might well assemble in prayer upon that day, and hear 2. or 3. sermons, and yet spare some time to bestow upon their labours, and the commandment forbiddeth labour on the seventh day, and not 
h The first day is now become the seventh.  on the first day of the week. Thus you may see (while you do nodum in scirpo quaerere, by seeking to prove that by scripture, which the Church doth hold by tradition) how you are driven to wrest the scripture, and how weak and ridiculous your arguments be. If the observation of the feast of Easter, and other festival days, prayer for the dead, or the Sacrifice of the Mass, had found the same entertainment with john Caluine, as the observation of the Sabbath hath done: I doubt not but that (although he would not have allowed of traditions) yet he would have found you as sufficient proof for any of them out of the word, as he hath done for the Sabbath: for so great a mote in your eyes is the tradition of the Church, that if your appetite serve to take liking of any point of doctrine grounded thereon, you will make any homely shift, rather than you will acknowledge the true 
i Tradition, a fountain in Popery.  fountain, from whence it springeth; and no marvel, for acknowledge the authority of those traditions, which 
k If you may do what you lift, we cannot stand.  by the testimony of all antiquity, were first delivered by the Apostles, and have ever since been observed, and delivered over as it were from hand to hand by succession of Bishops, and your heresy will fall to the ground. The next point of doctrine which you do hold without warrant of scripture, is, that it is lawful for Christians to eat blood, which was forbidden by the decree of the first general Council where the Apostles were present: 
l I will find you scripture for this in Saint Paul's Epistles.  what scriptures have you to do contrary to a Canon of so great a council? Pro. It is manifest, that in the infancy of the church, the Apostles having to do with the jews, a people wonderfully addicted to the strict observation of their law, did not think good to take from them all the ceremonies thereof at once: but rather by little and little to seek to win them by tolerating many things for a time, which in the Gospel were abolished; and to that intent Paul did circumcise Timothy, Acts 16. Pap. What warrant of scripture have you to prove that the commandment was given to be observed but for a time, in regard of the weakness of the jews? Pro. We have the word to prove that the ceremonial laws were abolished by the death of Christ, whereof abstaining from blood is one: and it is evident by the 15. of the Acts, that the assembly of the Apostles in the first general Council at jerusalem, was upon this occasion; they of the circumcision which believed were greatly scandalised, because the Gentiles, who were joined with them in the unity of the same faith, had utterly rejected their law, whereupon much controversy did arise between them; the jews contending that the believing Gentiles ought to be circumcised, and to observe the law of Moses; and the Gentiles to the contrary. For appeasing whereof the said Council assembled, and decreed that the Christians should abstain from blood, by eating whereof (as it seemeth) the weak jews were greatly offended, intending thereby somewhat to satisfy the jews, and yet not to lay too heavy a yoke upon the Gentiles. Thus you see how by the word the eating of blood was prohibited unto the Christians of those times, and how by the word it is permitted unto us. Pa. By what word can you prove that the 
m This fellow loves to bear himself speak else would he not make such an idle repetition.  eating of blood, which was both prohibited unto the jews before the Gospel, and to christians in the Gospel, is now lawful for us to do? that the law prescribed to the jews, concerning marriage within degrees of affinity, is still to be retained? and that the like law which commandeth the brother to raise up seed unto his brother deceased without issue, is to be abolished? that it is lawful for a Christian Magistrate to take away a man's life for 12. d. which was not lawful by the law of God to do, but in such cases only as in the same law are specified? with many other such like instances too long to repeat: when you have tired yourself in searching and wresting of scriptures, you shall find 
n Else are you deceived.  no other warrant for them, than the continual practice and tradition of the Church. Pro. It appeareth in the 5. Chapter of the 1. to the Corinth's, that Paul did disallow of marriage within degree of affinity, which is warrant sufficient, for the retaining of the laws prescribed to the jews on that behalf. Pap. You have no such warrant out of that place: for the text saith only, There is a 
o The fornication had not been so heinous, if the Son in law might marry his Mother in law.  fornication among you, not once named among the heathen, that a man should have his father's wife; it will be hard for you to prove out of this place, that the Fornication here specified, was committed by a marriage between the Son and the Mother in law 
p All this is but vain talk, that helps him not a whit.  for the laws of the Corinthians would permit no such marriage to be celebrated, as it may be gathered out of the text: for if such a fornication be not named among the heathen, much less is it permitted by the laws of the Corinth's, and therefore this Fornication was committed, by having his father's wife as a Concubine or a Whore, and not as a wife, as you imagine.  

The Answer.  
YOur Papist here talks in his sleep of two mortal wounds, which we by our description of the Church, have given to our own cause; and therefore your description must be had in memory, which as it bindeth the true Church to the voice of Christ, sounding in the canonical Scriptures: so it giveth us to understand that the false Church heareth the voice of strangers, and will not be ruled by the written word of the Almighty; yet notwithstanding the true Church may mistake the voice of Christ, and so err; whereby the first wound is fully healed: and if it should be granted, that the Church in general cannot err, yet it followeth not, that every one in particular that buildeth hay or stubble upon the foundation, is therefore no member of the Church: And so the second wound, which speaks of the exclusion of the Fathers & Doctors, is neither mortal, nor sensible. Now touching the first wound, which cencerneth the Protestant and Puritan, it is here brought to certain particular points, which I will speak of in order: The first is, the observation of the Sunday, which you prove syllogistically out of the Scripture, after this manner.  
1. The day whereon the Apostles did ordain, that Christians should weekly meet together to exercise themselves in hearing the word preached, receiving the Sacraments, and giving of Alms: that same day did the Apostles ordain to be the Sabbath of Christians.  
2. But the Apostles did ordain, that Christians should weekly assemble themselves upon the first day of the week, for the purpose before mentioned.  
Ergo, The Apostles did ordain the first day of the week to be the Christians Sabbath.  
Now, where your Papist saith; That if the Mayor were true, than the Apostles appointing more days than one for such exercises, should appoint more Sabbaths in a week than one, his answer hath no colour or show of reason, for though every day in the week had been so appointed: yet had they not been all Sabbaths, unless they had weekly continued, as the first day did from week to week, till Saint john's banishment; at what time still we find that day kept holy, and dedicated to the Lord, as appeareth by the name, which the holy Ghost giveth it in the Revelation. 
Cap. 1.13.  Again, where he saith: That the first Christians sold their possessions, to the intent they might wholly bestow themselves upon the service of God: It would be known by what tradition, or inspiration he found that out, seeing the scriptures inform us, 
Act. 2.45.  that their intent was to supply the necessity of their poor brethren. I trow, the other jews that were to attend daily upon the morning and evening hours of prayer and sacrifice, did not unload themselves of their possessions: moreover this law and sale of possessions, though it were used at jerusalem, yet was it not in force in Galatia, and Achaia, and other Churches of the Gentiles, 
1. Cor. 16.2. Gal. 6, 6, etc.  which had of their own to put aside and lay up for the poor.  
And touching the Minor, your Papist saith, that the Trojan Christians were assembled the first day of the week to break bread, but not appointed so to do by the prescription of the Apostles; belike they came together by hap hazard, or by their own appointment; howbeit, he that planted the Church of Troas, cannot be so forgetful, as to leave every man separately to himself, and not to appoint when they should assemble themselves, for the continual watering of that which was planted: 
Act. 20.7.  now to note what time that was Saint Luke names, the first day of the week, otherwise there is no reason why it should be mentioned: moreover whereas Paul, and his company came to Troas the second day of the week, and tarried there just seven days; yet no day of assembly is registered but this one only day; and yet we may not think that Paul, and his company lay idle six days together, and forgot the work of their calling: yea, but let us admit, (saith your Papist) that Paul was to departed on the Tuesday, and that the Christians were assembled on the Monday, etc. Yea marry, than should we be wise men, but the Disciples of Troas met not to hear Paul preach, (for most of them had heard him preach before sixs days together) but to break bread, which they would have done, though Paul had not been amongst them; and therefore this supposition is cloudy and riculous.  
Touching the place to the Corinthians, your Papist saith that Saint Paul doth not prescribe the first day of the week for prayer, preaching, and administration of Sacraments: but for a laying aside for the poor, according to every man's devotion, and I grant all this to be true: for those holy exercises were enjoined the churches of Galatia and Achaia, when they were first planted, and so was the collection for their own poor: for this collection for the Saimes at jerusalem was extraordinary: but that the Apostle Paul would be so troublesome, as not to content himself that this collection should be made, as their other collections were, upon their ordinary meeting day, but to appoint another day week by week, to the hindrance of their several callings, is utterly incredible; nay see further, I pray you, how your learned Papist doubleth the power of the argument which he goeth about to weaken: for when he asketh [why the Apostle enjoineth this collection to be made upon that day,] and answereth himself out of the text, [that there be no gatherings when I come,] and then asketh again, [why the Apostle would have no gatherings when he came,] and answereth with a [no doubt] because he would not have such spiritual exercises as he determined to bestow among them, hindered by such collections: what doth he else but confess, that the first day of the week was the day, that Paul purposed to keep holy at his coming, and therefore would not have that day bestowed upon collections, when he came, but before his coming: otherwise if he had meant to bestow spiritual blessings so plentifully among them upon any other day, than gatherings made upon that day, could not hinder him.  
Yea, but if these collections were hindrances to the spiritual exercises of the Sabbath, than it followeth, that the first day of the week, wherein Paul would have these collections made, was not appointed to be the Christians Sabbath. Well wrangled: but howsoever this extraordinary collection, enjoined by Saint Paul, might hinder Saint Paul himself, that preached at Troas till midnight; nay, till the dawning of the next day, 
Rom. 15.29.  and used to come with abundance of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ: yet their own ordinary ministery, being far less plentiful, could not be so easily hindered: 
Apol. 2.  and therefore we read in justine Martyr, that in his time, beside preaching and administering the Sacraments, collections were made upon this very day in Christian Churches.  
One wrangle more remaineth against the force of this place to the Corinth's; namely, that no general assembly can be wrung out of it, because the text saith, Let every one put apart by himself, and lay up, which argueth a private laying up at home: for a man cannot be said to lay up that which he delivereth to another. Well wrangled again: but what? call you this a gathering? and is this kind of laying up at every man's own home, a sufficient dispatch of all gathering, so as there should be no gathering at all, when the Apostle should come himself amongst them? Wherefore little wring will serve to prove that this laying up, is not meant of every man's own purse, or cupboard at home, which might be done any other day, as well as the first of the week; but of some public Chest or Box, provided for every man's free beneficence, as every particular man himself found himself able and willing.  
Now followeth the place of the Revelation, where Saint john saith, that he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, or, 
Cap. 1.10. Psa. 74.16.  as the Rheims Testament translates it, the Dommicall day; Out of which we learn, first, that albeit all the days of the week are the Lords; yet this day is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being a more excellent or eminent day, than the rest, and so consequently a day consecrated to the service of the Lord. Secondly, we learn that this day was famously known by the name of Lords day, or Dominical day, in the Churches of Asia, 
Revel. 1.4.  to whom Saint john dedicated his Revelation for it had been to no purpose for him to tell them, that he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, if they knew not what day that was, and how it was severed by that name from the rest of the week, and therefore as it was an eminent day, and chosen from among the other days of the week for the special service of the Lord, so was it celebrated as an eminent day, and so still kept in fresh memory in the Churches of Asia: now that this day was the first day of the week, and no other, it will be easy to show without shifts, not only because no other day was ever permanently kept holy, but also because we may trace the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Dominica, applied to this day, as it were a Hare in the snow, issuing out of this place of the Revelation, into all the Churches of Christendom. Yea, but (saith your Papist) Might not the first day of the week be called the Lords day, in regard of Christ's Resurrection? I say no, for than it had been called the Rising day, or, the Resurrection day; as the like days be, namely, Ascension, Circumcision, etc. For to call it, the Lords day, in regard of Christ's Resurrection, is utterly insensible.  
When he demandeth further; Whether the jews Sabbath might not remain, or be abolished, as other Ceremonies were, 
Col. 2.16.16  without substituting another Sabbath in place thereof? I answer, that the jews Sabbath is taken away by Saint Paul, so far forth as it was ceremonial, but the moral parts thereof, namely, that one day in a week should be laid apart for spiritual meditations and exercises, 
Exod. 23.12.  and for the recreation of servants and dumb creatures, was to be kept still inviolable without any such substitution, as he dreams of: and so his other wranglements about bodily labour, and resting the seventh day, not the first day of the week are clean dashed; 
Mat. 12.5.11. Mark. 2.27. & 3.4. Luk. 13.14. etc. joh. 5.8. etc. & 9.6.7.14. Iren. lib. 4. ca 19  howbeit, that which was the first day of the week, is now become the seventh day, and bodily labour was never altogether unlawful, no not in time of the law, as appeareth clearly in many places of the new Testament. Now judge you, or any reasonable man else in the world, whether our arguments, or his answers be weak and ridiculous: as for his Tradition, the more he urgeth it, the more he confuteth himself, and confirmeth our exposition of these three places: for if the Apostles delivered the observation of the Sabbath by Tradition, we may not think they delivered it to some Churches, and not to other some; and if they delivered it to all without exception, than was it delivered to them of Troas, to the Galatians, Corinthians, and the Churches of Asia; if to them, then can it not be denied, but that these places of scripture, which I have now disputed of, do clearly contain the practice and continual observance of the Lords day, as it was delivered to these Churches by the Apostles. I will not vouchsafe to answer your Papists unpowdered talk of john Caluin, that worthy servant of God, and wire-whipper of popish merchants out of the house of God, only this I will say, that if john Caluin were not a greater mote in his eye, then Popish traditions are in ours, he would have spared this idle vagary.  
The next point is, eating blood, 
Act. 15. 2●.29  which was forbidden in the first general Council, the circumstance whereof you have well set down; howbeit your Papist still calls for Scripture, whereby it may be showed him, that after the decree made at jerusalem by the Apostles, it was lawful for Christians to eat blood; which he would never do if he were learned, and had read the Epistles of Saint Paul with any diligence? wherefore you may stop his mouth for this point, out of these places which I have here quoted, 1. 
Rom. 14.2, 3, 6, 14, 20, etc. 1. Cor. 10.29. Coloss. 2.16.  Timothy 4.4. Tit. 1.15.  
Now followeth the third point, which hangs upon Tradition and not upon Scripture, 
Levi. 28. & 20 Deut. 25.5.  namely the forbidding of marriage within degrees of affinity; as if Leviticus were no scripture; yea but, (may he say) Deuteronomy is scripture too, as well as Leviticus, yet the brother is there commanded to raise up seed to his brother, which in Leviticus is made unlawful; now tell us why you receive the one and refuse the other? here must you call for the help of Tradition, or else lie in the dust? Alas, good Papist, you are much deceived, for the law of Leviticus is moral, and naturally engraffed in the hearts of all nations, as appeareth evidently in the conclusion of this law in Leviticus, from the four and twentieth verse to the end of the eighteenth Chapter: for if this Law had been peculiar for the jews, there is no reason why the Canaanitic nations should be punished so severely, as there it is described, for the non observance of the same: as for the other law of Deuteronomy, it is an exception or dispensation in that particular case, for the common weal of the jews, wherein God had a special care of the first borne and his inheritance: again, being repugnant to nature, and to the explication thereof twice told in Leviticus, 
Cap. 18.16. & cap. 20.21.  it might not continue longer vnrepealed.  
Touching the example of the incestuous Corinthian which you propound; it will stick better to your Papists ribs, than he is aware of: for how can that fornication be unheard of among the Gentiles, which a man committeth with such a one as he may lawfully marry? if than this Corinthian might lawfully marry his mother in law, verily single copulation with her could not be so abominable, as that the very Gentiles could not abide it should be once named amongst them, and if single copulation of the mother and son in law was so much abhorred, than was it unlawful they should marry, and so the law of God in Leviticus is confirmed; and so indeed your Papist gently confesseth in these words [the law of the Corinth's would permit no such marriage, as may be gathered out of the text,] etc.  
The fourth point followeth, namely, that it cannot be showed by scripture, that it is a greater offence in a Christian, to have many wives, than it was in David, howbeit we read in Scripture, that God gave him his master's wives into his bosom; 
2. Sam. 12.8. Rom. 4.15. Nulla lege prohibebatur, August. contr. Faust: lib. 22. cap. 47. Matth. 19.4. etc. 1. Cor. 7.2. etc. Eph. 5.31.  & if there be no transgression where there is no law, as Paul saith, then verily Polygamy, being neither clearly forbidden by any law, nor reprehended by any Prophet from the beginning of the world, to the coming of Christ: it must follow, that it was either no transgression at all in the fathers, or a far less transgression than it is in Christians, whom Christ jesus himself, and the holy Apostle Saint Paul, hath so manifestly instructed, that nothing can be more evident.  
Now touching the fift and last point, of punishing theft with death, it is confessed by your Papist, that it was lawful by the law of God, in cases specified in the same law, that is, 
Cap. 22.2.  as I take it, if the thief break up a house, for that I find specified in Exodus. Howbeit David in a case not specified, giveth sentence of a thief, that as the Lord liveth, he is the child of death, that is, that he should surely die and also that he should make a fourfold or eightfolde restitution, 
2. Sam. 12.5.6 Arbangtaijm  (Arbangtaijm) Now if the Hebrew word be taken for eightfold, as no Romanist may deny, 
Exod. 21.1.  because the old catholic translation hath so set it down; we see plainly, that beside the sentence of death, 
Cap. 6.31.  which David justifieth with an oath, the punishment specified in the law, is doubled; nay, the increase of the punishment appointed by the law, is clearly made good in the Proverbs of Solomon, where it is said, that a thief being taken, shall restore seven fold, or give all the substance that he hath. 
Rom. 13.4.  and touching the christian Magistrate, S. Paul saith, 
1. Tim. 5.20.  that the wicked should fear the sword of vengeance, which God hath put in his hand, where fear is made the end of punishment, as it is in Timothy: where the same Apostle saith, them that sin, rebuke openly, that the rest may fear, but if open rebuking did not strike such a fear as bridled sinners from corrupting their ways, than Timothy was to proceed to a more heavy censure, that might work this fear, and so keep down sin from multiplying in the Church, and even so ought the civil Magistrate to temper penal laws in the civil state, that evil disposed men may fear, and never to take his laws to be sufficiently penal, but still to increase the terror of them, till fear to do evil; be sufficiently planted, and this equity doth the Lord himself retain in his own displeasure, or indignation against sin; 
Psal. 90.11.  for so the great Prophet of God Moses teacheth us in these words, thereafter as thou art feared, so is thy displeasure: wherefore these two, displeasure and fear, are like the two buckets of a Well, whereof the one cometh up, when the other goeth down; and the one is at the highest, when the other is at the lowest: briefly then to conclude, as the Lord saw the punishment appointed in the law powerful enough at that time, and a long time after, to work fear in that Nation and State, but yet was increased afterward by the jewish Magistrates, as they saw the disposition of the people to require it: so the christian Magistrate finding by experience, that the state and condition of his time and country is more desperate and less fearful to rob and steal then the jews were, and so not to be ruled without a greater sharpness; must needs when this sword, and strike deeper than the jewish Magistrate, that he may be feared.    

The Dialogue. Sestio. III. Tradition.  
PAp. I will 
a It is better to omit them, then to speak of them so childishly as you have done of the rest.  omit those other points of doctrine, which you do hold without warrant of scripture, for brevities sake, and pass unto the searching of the second mortal wound, which as I said, you have given unto your own cause, reserving your answer to the rest, unto your better leisure and premeditation; yet, by the way let me show you the great difference between the antiquity and you in this point, 
b We can ackdowledge no such traditions.  who received the traditions delivered by the Apostles, without writing, and continued and observed from hand to hand, with no less reverence, than they did the written Scriptures. Irenaeus saith of the heretics of his time, that when the Scriptures were alleged against them, they would answer, that the Scriptures could not be understood of those that were ignorant of the traditions, and that when the Traditions delivered by the Apostles, and kept in the church by succession of Bishops, were objected, they would answer, that they had more understanding than the Bishops or the Apostles themselves, and that they alone had found out the truth. lib. 3. cap. 2. whereby you may see that the 
c They might better do it then, than you now.  catholics in the first age of the Church, did allege against the heretics of that time, Scripture and Traditions, even as the catholics of this time do allege the same against the heretics of this time, and herein only consisteth the difference, when Scriptures are alleged against the heretics of this time, they do fly to the interpretation; when the interpretation of the Bishops, that is, of the ancient catholic Doctors is produced against them, they answer in effect, that they have more understanding than the Bishops, and that they alone have found the truth: when the Traditions delivered by the Apostles are 
d You may sooner allege them, then prove that the Apostles delivered them.  alleged, they answer, that the Apostles did leave none such, or if they did, that they are not to be received, unless they can be proved out of the canonical Scriptures: thus you appeal from traditions to Scripture; when scripture is brought against you, you appeal to the interpretation, and from the interpretation of the fathers, to the interpretation of Caluin, or to the 
e This is but the imagination of your brain.  imagination of your own brain, as to the supreme judge and primum mobile of all your religion, but let us proceed in showing the great difference between the fathers & you herein: Epiphanius, O portet autem traditione uti, non enim omnia a divina Scriptura accipi possunt, etc. We ought to use traditions, because all things cannot be learned out of the holy Scripture. And a little after it followeth, Tradiderunt itaque sancti Des Apostoli peccatum esse post dicretam virginitatem nubere, lib. 2. to. 2. haeres. 61. The holy Apostles of God have delivered, that after the vow of virginity, it is sin to marry. The same father for the confutation of Aerius, useth the authority of the tradition of the Apostles, haeres. 75. and for the confutation of Severus, he voucheth a place out of the book 
a Then the Apostles delivered them written in a book.  of the Apostles Constitutions, haeres. 45. Saint Augustine, Many things which are not found in the writings of the Apostles, 
b How can it be known, whether this belief were right or wrong?  are believed to have been delivered by the Apostles by tradition, because they are observed through the universal world, de baptis. count Donat. lib. 2. fo. 2. The same Author saith, that the universal Church doth observe, as a tradition of the fathers, that when mention is made of the dead (at the tim of the sacrifice) that they should be prayed for, and that the sacrifice also should be offered for them, de verb Apost. serm. 32. Saint Chrysostome citeth a place out of the Canons 
c These Canons are in writing.  of the Apostles; and to this effect could I allege the testimony of all ancient fathers and doctors, as it were with one mouth, so that if you should deny S. john's gospel, I could use none other 
d The more unwise you.  proof against you for the one, than I can for the other, which is the testimony and consent of antiquity, and 
e Surety you are deceived.  surely by denying of traditions, you have brought yourself into a very intricate Dilemma, for either you must prove 
f That is soon done.  by scripture, that the first day of the week ought to be kept holy as the Sabbath of Christians etc. and grant that all the ancient fathers, who were Papists, and held many things by tradition, were damned 
g If they were Papists, they were heretics, but they were neither of both.  heretics, or else that you are heretics yourself.  

The Answer.  
NOw followeth as it were (by the way) a blind inartificial proof of Traditions out of the authority of men, 
Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 3. cap. 1.  whereof Irenaeus is the first; yet Irenaeus speaks not of Traditions, but with this Preface, non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quam per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc preconiaverunt, postea vero per Deivoluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum: We have known the manner or order of our salvation, by none other men, then by those, by whom the Gospel came unto us: which then indeed they preached, and afterward by the will of God delivered to us in the scriptures to be unto us the foundation and pillar of our faith. Now having laid this foundation in the first Chapter, and concluded withal that all heretics descent from the Scriptures, he gins the next Chapter after this sort; Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur in accusacionem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem: For when they are convinced by the scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scriptures, as if they were not 〈…〉 set down, or not of sufficient authority, and because things are diversly spoken, and because the truth cannot be found in them by those which know not the tradition.  
These heretics are as like the Papists, as if the one had been spewed out of the others mouth: I trow, you understand who they be that call the scriptures of God, dead ink, a dead and a dumb thing, dumb judges, the black Gospel, inckehorne divinity, a nose of wax, etc. if you know them not, read jewels Apology, and there you shall find them, 
Part. 4. cap. 19 di. 1. Sectione 23.  your own Papist saith, that [the Scriptures without the help of church, fathers and counsels, are the fountain of all heresy and atheism,] thus heretics do and have done always, quia ex scripturis arguuntur, saith Irenaeus, and so, either the scripture or their heresy must needs fall. But to proceed, Irenaeus tells you why these heretics would not be ruled by the scriptures, namely, because Paul saith, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, and this is Bellarmine's own reason, for unwritten verities, borrowed, as you see, 
1. Cor. 2.6. De verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Tertullian.  of these old heretics, and confuted by Tertullian in his Prescriptions, but thus the spirit of Antichrist goeth on still in these days, as it did in Irenaeus and Tertullians' time, to make way to his own dreams. It was full time for our Papist here to draw the Readers mind awry to john Caluin, and I wots not what [appeals] and [imaginations] and [brains,] and such like flowers of popish rhetoric; otherwise it had been easy to see that he and his friends are the sons and heirs of Valentinus, Martion, Cerinthus, Basilides and Carpocrates, all of them, or some of them, as Irenaeus teacheth us: and this may be yet better seen, in that Irenaeus being driven from scripture, 
Iren. lib. 1. cap. 23. & 24. & lib. 3. cap. 2.  which these heretics contemned, to Traditions, which before they seemed to allow of; he can no way fasten upon them, neither by Scripture, nor Traditions, unless they might be masters of both, as being wiser men in their own conceits, then either the Apostles that delivered them, or the Bishops that kept them. Now judge, who be the heirs of these heretics, john Caluin, as this Papist prateth, or the Pope and his dependents, whose religion is called by Saint Paul (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, 
2. Thes. 2: 7, 8 Ni●. Cusanus de auth. eccles. supra & contrascript. Albert. Pighius, eccles. hierarch. lib. 6.13  such a mystery, as will be ruled by no law, a mystery of lawless iniquity, and the Pope himself (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, a lawless man, such as will stoop neither to Scripture nor Tradition: one of his Cardinals saith, Nulla sunt Christi praecepta, nisi quae per ecclesiam pro talibus accepta sunt: There are no precepts of Christ but these, which the Church accounteth to be such; so the Church of Rome is above the Scripture. And another Champion saith, Papa virtualiter est tota ecclesia, the Pope is in power the whole Church: and so the Pope is above the Church. Thus the Pope must be first, the Church must be next; and the scripture given of God by inspiration, 
Must have the third place.  must, consistere in tertijs, and be glad of such room, as these great masters will afford it: Quapropter undique resistendum est, saith Irenaeus, wherefore we must set ourselves against them every way. If scripture will not serve, we use tradition: and if both be contemned, we use all other means that may be thought of, to draw them ad conversionem veritatis. This is Irenaeus his conclusion, & whole discourse in this Chapter, which makes nothing at all for Popish traditions, which are not alleged as witnesses, and backs to the truth of the scripture, nor yet against such as deny the perfection of the word written.  
Epiphanius is next, who, if he had said, Oportet traditione abuti, We must abuse tradition; our Papist and his friends had been beholding to him: but Epiphanius saith else where That he gathered the truth of the doctrine of God, Ex universa scriptura, out of the whole scripture; to be an anchorhold unto us, 
Heres. 69. Epip. Anchor.  and in the beginning of his Anchorate, thus we read: De vide vobis scribam, quum requiratis vos, & fratres nostri ea quae spectant ad vestram salutem ex divina & sancta scriptura firmum fundamentum fidei de patre & filio, & spiritu sancto, & de reliqua universa in Christo salute, de resurrectione, inquam, mortuorum, & de unigeniti in carne adventu, & de sancto testamento veteri ac novo, & in summa de alijs constitutionibus perfectae salutis, I will write unto you concerning the faith, (seeing you and our brethren require of us the things which concern your salvation,) out of the holy scripture a firm foundation of faith, concerning the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit, and all the rest of the matter of our salvation in Christ, to wit, of the resurrection of the dead; of the coming of the only begotten in the flesh; of the holy Testament both old and new; and in brief, of other constitutions pertaining to the perfection of salvation. Now we may consider with less danger of the place here alleged; wherein that Epiphanius be not misunderstood, we must consider that these words; Omnia a divina scriptura accipi non possunt, We ought to use traditions, because all things cannot be learned out of the holy Scripture; must be restrained to the matter in hand: for Epiphanius meaneth that the bare letter of this or that scripture, doth not afford sufficient helps to understand itself, but requireth other means for that purpose; for thus stand the words, Divina verba speculatione indigent & sensu ad cognoscendam uniuscuiusque propositi argumenti vim ac facultatem, oportet & traditione uti; non enim omnia à divina scriptura accipi possunt, etc. The words of God have need of speculation, and sense to know the force and power of every argument propounded: we must also use tradition, because all things cannot be learned out of the holy Scriptures. Now by these means, he expoundeth a place of Paul to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 7.28.  If a Virgin marry, she sinneth not; this place (saith he) is meant of such as had a long time continued Virgins, because none in that paucity of Christians, did offer to marry them; and therefore Paul permitteth, they should marry with jews and Infidels; you have heard his speculation: yea, but why may not this place of Paul be meant simply of all Virgin's marriageable without exception? Epiphanius answereth, Tradiderunt sancti Dei Apostoli peccatum esse post decretam virginitatem ad nuptias converti, The holy Apostles of God have delivered, that after the vow of virginity, it is sin to marry. You have heard his Tradition; but like speculation, like Tradition. For it is incredible that the Christians of Corinth, had not as many sons and daughters, as many males as females, more incredible, that there was such a paucity of Christians in so populous a Church, as the Church of Corinth; 
2. Cor. 6.14.  and most incredible of all, that Paul should permit, that in his first Epistle, which he forbade in his second: and so his Speculation faileth him. Moreover, it is a fond conceit to think that there were Votaries in Paul's time, or that Paul in the seventh of the first to the Corinth's, spoke not generally of all Virgins, but of such as could not get Christian husbands, Propter penuriam charitatis: & so his Tradition is come to nothing; No, no, if there had been such Nuns at Corinth, the Apostle being requested to set down his judgement for the direction of Virgins, could not possibly forget that principal kind of Virgins, that had most need of direction, & speak only of some other meaner regard, and that in such general terms without any exception, or mention of votall Virgins. More over Epiphanius fortifieth his tradition out of Paul, who saith juniores viduas reijce, postquam enim lascivierunt contra Christum nubere volunt habentes iudicuum, quod primam fidem reiecerunt, The younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have rejected the first faith. Concluding thereof, that Virgins are much more to be blamed than Widows. if they turn back from their purpose of continency; wherefore it is not an unwritten verity, that Epiphanius obtrudeth upon us, but a conclusion drawn out of the first to Timothy; 
Cap. 5.11. etc.  howbeit S. Paul rejecting young widows from vowing or promising continency, doth by the same reason reject young virgins, which be in as great danger of breaking their faith and promise, as young widows, and so still we find, that no such votaries were allowed to snare themselves with vows, and religious promises in Paul's time: but left free to use the remedy of marriage, according to the ordinance of God. But to make short work, whether Epiphanius here speak of written or unwritten verities; yet he concludeth in the end, that it is better, even for Votaries openly to marry according to the law, than to be wounded daily by the secret darts of concupiscence; than which, nothing can be more contrary to the practice and principles of Popery.  
Touching the confutation of Aerius, it stands upon a tradition of fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays till night, and feeding upon breed, water, and salt six days before Easter, which is quite dead long ago. Moreover, Epiphanius opposeth his traditions to matter of faith, saying; Ecclesia acceptam à patribus veram fidem usque huc continet itemque traditiones, The Church doth still retain the true faith receceived from the Fathers, and also their Traditions. And therefore, if Aerius had offended against nothing but Traditions, he had been sound in the Faith notwithstanding, and so no heretic. As for the Book of the Apostles Constitutions, either Epiphanius lost it out of his bosom, or it is that which is extant under the name of Clemens, and condemned long ago in the sixth general Council at Constantinople: 
Can. 2.  yet are these Constitutions allowed for good scripture in the last Canon of the Apostles, 
Lib. 2. cap. 59 Lib. 6. cap. 14 Lib. 2. cap. 63 Lib. 5. cap. 16  which the very Papists themselves are ashamed of. And good reason, for they say in one place, that james the brother of our Lord was not an Apostle; and in another place, that he was not an Apostle: they say also, that the people ought to come together every day, morning and evening, which is no where observed; they say, that judas was absent when Christ celebrated his last supper, which is contrary to the scripture; to be short, these Constitutions are so full of errors and falsehoods, that no honest Christian will father them upon the Apostles, or allow them for canonical Scripture.  
The place of Austin, which your Papist (as a blind man) casts his staff at, is in the seventh Chapter of the second Book De baptismo contra Donatistas', and the words be these, Multa non inveniuntur in literis Apostolorun, neque in Conciliis postererun, & tamen quia custodiuntur per universam ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur, Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the Counsels of later time, yet because they are kept by the whole Church, they are supposed to be delivered and commended to us by none but them. These words, though they seem plain, have some doubt, which somewhat quaileth the force of them: for it is not so easy to know whether, ab ipsis, should be referred to Apostolorum, or posterorum; howbeit, I say further, that the Traditions that Augustine speaks of, are of the same nature with that one Tradition, which he treats of in those Books against the Donatists; namely, the not rebaptizing of Heretics; which though it be not expressly, and explicately set down in the writings of the Apostles: yet Austin himself knew it might be sound deduced out of the Scriptures, and so he testifieth almost in every Book of that work against the Donatists.  

Haeres. 75.  The other place, which he allegeth out of Austin, sspeaks of a Tradition indeed, but it was a Tradition of the Fathers, not of the Apostles, and even so saith Epiphanius of the very same tradition, Ecclesia hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta, the Church doth this by a tradition received from the Fathers. 
In Philip. homil. 3.  And therefore Chrysostome went too far, when he saith, Ab Apostolis sancitum est; it is decreed by the Apostles: but though there be places of good show in Chrysostome, yet your Papist could say no more, but that he citeth a place out of the Canons of the Apostles, and yet quoteth neither Book, Chapter, leaf, nor Homily, where a man may find it in Chrysostom's works; howbeit if he mean the Apostles Constitutions, he hath his answer; if those Canons that be set down in the first book of Counsels, I say, they never saw any of the Apostles, but were begotten in later times, as it is most clear in the Canons themselves, 
Can. 8.  Si quis Episcopus, aut presbyter, aut Diaconus sanctum paschae diemante vernale aequinoctium ex judaeis celebraverit, abijciatur, If any either Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon shall according to the manner of the jews, celebrate the feast of Easter before the vernal equinoctial, let him be deposed. If this had been enacted by the Apostles, it may be wondered how there could be such ado, about the feast of Easter, between the East and West Churches, the whole matter being so clearly decided aforehand by the Apostles themselves. Again, when we read in another Canon, 
Can. 30.  that such Bishops, as came by their bishoprics by secular Princes, should be deposed: it is easily seen that some of these Canons were not shot off, till the time of Christian Magistrates; for Infidels (I trow) used not to give Bishoprics, neither was there ever any so far beside himself, as to seek a Bishopric by their means; if this will not content your Papist: then let him show me some reason, why these Canons are not set down as a part of the new Testament, but marked by Pope Gelasius for apocryphal, 
Apud Gratian. distinct. 15. C. Rom. Ecclesia.  and then I will consider whether it be needful to give him another answer.  
Thus have I run over the choicest testimonies that he could find in all the ancient Fathers and Doctors: for if he could allege all, as it were with one mouth, to speak for his blind Traditions, as here he brags, it is to be thought that either he hath choose the best, or else that he hath no judgement: as for Saint john's Gospel, beside the Majesty of the style, let him read Epiphanius against the Alogians, and there he shall find some better proofs for the confirmation and defence of it, than the testimony and consent of antiquity. Now, touching his Dilemma, which he takes to be so intricate, a very child may easily dissolve it; for we do not hold, that any thing can make a damned heretic, but the stiff and perverse holding and avouching of such doctrine, as is contrary or inconsonant to the holy Scriptures, whereof the Fathers are not guilty, neither will any Papist at this day stand in defence of such Traditions, as agree not with the word written.    

The Dialogue. Sectio FOUR  
PRo. Your learning (I confess) is far beyond mine, yet if you will give me leave to press you with your own argument, I doubt not, but I shall compel you to make such an answer as may serve us both. Pap. Take your course. Pro. You shall find in Epiphanius. Haeres. 73. that the Apostles did ordain, that the Wednesdays should be fasted through the whole year, (except in the feast of Pentecost,) and that six days before Easter, no sustenance should be received but salt, bread, and water: Now if you do think, that these Traditions were left by the Apostles, why do you not observe them? and why do you seek to lay a burden upon us, which you do refuse to bear yourself? Pap. You must understand, that from the first planting of the Church, many things taught and delivered by the Apostles, have been altered, and taken away partly by the Apostles themselves, and partly 
a Then were their Successors over-saucy, unless they had warrant in the Scripture so to do.  by their Successors, as the alteration of times and events, have given occasion to alter or take them away for the good of the Church, as the community of all things, practised and allowed by the Apostles, the office of 
b They were men as well as widow women. Rom. 12.8.  Widows instituted by the Apostles; the prohibition of eating of blood decreed by the Apostles: the antiquity did fast upon the evens of solemn Festival days, and watch in the nights (as the name Vigilia yet remaining doth testify) but when an abuse was perceived to grow thereby, the watching was taken away, the fasting being continued, & practised in the Church at this day. August. ad frat. in Eremo Serm. 25. We might give like instances of the Sundays in Lent, which were not fasted in ancient times, with the Wednesdays fast, by you alleged out of Epiphanius, and many such like too long to repeat. Out of which we gather with the be, that the Apostles did ordain many things in the Church, which it is lawful for themseleus 
c How prove you their Successors might do it?  and their Successors to alter, or take away when time and occasion should require it, for the good of the Church: but if we shall gather hereof, that because the Church upon grave deliberation, hath taken away some 
d What be those things?  things delivered by the Apostles, that therefore john Caluin, or any other private man, may (at his pleasure) reject other some, we shall suck poison with the Spider: if I should argue with you, that because you do reject the Wednesdays fast, which was 
e We hear you say so.  a Tradition of the Apostles; that therefore we may reject the observation of the Sunday: it would seem but a weak argument, although you could be content to confess, that the observation of Sunday is grounded only upon the Tradition of the Church, which to do were less shame unto you, than to seek so ridiculously 
f It is better proved, than you can prove your Traditions.  to prove it by testimony of Scripture. The ancient Catholics (as you have heard) did use the 
g They might better do it then, than you now.  authority of Tradition for the convincing of Heresies, yet was there never any of those Heretics, that denied the authority of Traditions, because the Catholics did not observe all the Traditions which were left by the Apostles. Saint Augustine (in the place by me above alleged, where he saith: That we ought to believe many things, which are not contained in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the counsels of their Successors, as Traditions delivered by the Apostles because they are observed through the universal Church) doth give us an infallible rule for the true discerning of those Traditions of the Apostles, which we are bound to follow & embrace of which sort is all the doctrine of the Catholic, which is not found in the written Scriptures: and surely this is so certain and direct 
h This rule cracks the crown of Popery.  a rule, that it cannot deceive or misled us; for can we imagine, that a 
i The Apostles planted no weeds, but the envious man that loved Popery. Mat. 13.25.  weed not planted by the Apostles should spring up, overspread the universal Church, remain and continue from age to age; be delivered from Bishop to Bishop; that so many general Counsels, in the mean time, should be assembled for the extirpation of such Bastard plants; and that so many Catholic Doctors in the mean time should write against heresies, and yet that such a weed should still 
k Antichrist did work in Paul's time, and must work still, till he be abolished by the brightness of Christ's coming 2. Thes. 2 7.8.  remain without check or contradiction? Contrariwise, these Traditions delivered by the Apostles, which are now generally abolished through the universal Church: as the Apostles (who were directed by the Spirit of God) did first institute them, for the benefit of that state of the Church, wherein they were ordained; even so, when times have altered the state of the Church, the Apostles Successors (directed by the same Spirit 
l Had they no other direction but the Spirit? take heed you be not an Anabaptist. ) have altered or abolished them for the like benefit of the Church. In the Apostles time, when the Ceremonies of the law were lately abolished, the jews and the Gentiles intermingled, and people flocked together from all parts of the world, to hear the doctrine of the Apostles, and to see the miracles which God did work by them, the community of all things, the prohibition of eating of blood, and the office of widows, was profitable for that state of the Church, and 
m A gros●e oversight.  universally practised; but when that state of the Church was altered, all those ordinances were altered, with no less benefit of the Church, than before they were observed. Pro. If the general practice of the universal Church, be the rule whereby to discern the Doctrine, which we ought to observe by the Tradition; then is all your Doctrine, which is not grounded upon the Scriptures, not warranted by your own rule, because it is not practised universally; for the contrary is practised by the greater part of Christendom. Pap. This rule was sufficient before Martin Luther's time, for than was the Catholic Religion 
n It was never universal, and it was heretical both before, and after Luther's time.  universal: and therefore I desire to learn of you; how (since that time) the sufficiency thereof should be impaired: for if then it was a fault in Luther to dissent from the universal Church: how can the same doctrine which was nought in him, be good in his Disciples? Pro. The Greek Church did celebrate the Feast of Easter upon the 14. day of the month of March by Tradition of the Apostles; the Latin Church did celebrate the same feast upon the Sunday next following after the fourteenth day of the Moon of March, (if the said 14. day happened not upon the Sunday) by Tradition also, the like difference was between them for the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the administration of the Sacrament, either of them grounding their doctrine upon the Tradition: now, if you will confess that the Traditions of the Apostles were not contrary unto themselves, you see how uncertain and dangerous it is to ground our faith upon unwritten Traditions. Pa. 
a A paltry cavil.  The Lutherans and Caluinists hold contrary opinions, (either of them grounding his doctrine upon the word of God;) will you thereupon conclude that it is a dangerous matter for us to ground our faith upon the word of God? Pro. The comparison is not alike, for in the one case the question is, whether of them hath the true Tradition; and in the other, whether of them doth rightly interpret the Scripture, which both parties do agree to be the word of God. Pa. If I had said, how dangerous it is for every man to ground his faith upon 
b Why not his own, as well as another man's. I must like it, and so make it my own before I can believe it.  his own interpretation, you had been prevented of this answer, but you do mistake the matter in part, for it appeareth by Epiphanius haeres. 70. that this difference between the Latin and Greek Church concerning the celebration of Easter, did grow upon 
c As though the Apostles did not practise it in their own persons in both Churches but only deliver it by Tradition.  the interpretation of the Tradition; but the rule before mentioned, prescribed by Saint Augustine for the discerning of those Traditions, which we are bound to embrace and follow, doth free you from all this supposed danger: for if the question be of such a point of doctrine which is not contained in the word of God, and yet notwithstanding is practised of some particular Churches, people, or nations, but not universally through the whole world; such a point of doctrine we are not bound by the said rule, to receive as a Tradition left by the Apostles, yet notwithstanding if such a point of doctrine be not contrary to the word of God, those churches or countries where such doctrine is practised, aught to receive and reverence the same as a doctrine left unto them by their spiritual pastors and superintendents for their spiritual benefit; concerning which, you shall find sufficient for your satisfaction, in those advertisements (set down by S. Bede) which Pope Gregory sent unto S. Austin the Monk, for answer of this very question, concerning the diversity of customs used in divers nations in matters of Church government. But let it be 
d You cannot choose but grant it.  granted that it was doubtful for a time, whether the Greek or the Latin Church did observe the right Tradition; the like doubt and question 
c You can be content to lose the Scripture, so you may keep your Traditions.  was sometimes made of the Apocalypse of S. john, and of other pieces of scripture; but since the one was decided by a general Council, and both is now received and believed of the universal Church, there remaineth no more doubt in the one than in the other, the tradition leading us to the truth of them both. Thus it appeareth as clear as the Sun, that the Apostles left many things which are not contained in their writings, by Tradition; Secondly, that many traditions left by the Apostles, are now abolished; Thirdly, that that doctrine which is practised & believed through the universal Church, having no ground out of the writings of the Apostles, and which hath been universally practised from age to age, and from Bishop to Bishop, is a Tradition of the Apostles, and to be followed and embraced; and consequently, that all the doctrine of the Catholics (which is not warranted by Scripture) is 
f That is to say, upon a fancy of your own.  grounded upon the Traditions of the Apostles, and therefore to 
g How long? till it please you to disannul them.  be followed and embraced.  

The Answer.  
Here your Papist takes pains to show us another point of his [learning,] namely, why some Traditions be kept, and some be out of date; but very simply in my opinion; for antiquity appointing both wednesdays and fridays to be fasted, let him yield me any colour of reason or [circumstance of times or states] why the Church should reject the one and observe the other: they were both in force with like authority, with like consent, in omnibus orbis terrarum regionibus, in all the countries of the world: 
Haeres. ●5.  as saith Epiphanius, they were agreeable in all points to Augustine's rule, which is so certain and direct, saith he, that it cannot mislead us, yet for all this, wednesday fast must be packing, and friday only must continue; what Church, I beseech you, did this, and when, and upon what [grave consideration] was it done? it is not enough for him to talk his pleasure flyingly of [the community of all things] no where practised but at jerusalem; of [the office of widows] still in force where it may be had, [prohibition of blood,] rerepealed by Saint Paul and such like; but he should show us what eare-marke one Tradition hath more than another, why it may or should be canceled; and touching [not fasting upon Sundays in Lent] or any time else in the year, it was generally observed in the Catholic Church, as the same Epiphanius witnesseth, 
In compend▪ doctr. eccles. haeres. 70. epist add Phil. lib. de coronae militis.  who telleth us also in another place out of the Apostles Constitutions, that he is accursed of God that fasteth upon Sunday, qui affligit animam suam in Dominica maledictus est Deo. Ignatius calleth them that fast upon Sunday (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Christicides, Christ killers. Whereunto Tertullian accordeth, saying, 
Epiph. 75.  die Dominico jeiunium nefas ducimus, we count it a heinous sin to fast on the Lord's day: yet notwithstanding, the Romanists have found some [grave consideration] or other to disannul it, and to agree rather in that point with Aerius and Eustathius too, whereof the one was an heretic, 
Socrates hist. eccles. lib. 2. cap. 33.  whatsoever the other was, apud Aerianos studium est, ut in die Dominica ieiunent: Eustathius dominicis diebus ieiunandum docuit, the Aerians are careful to fast on the Lord's day: Eustathius taught that men ought to fast on the Lords days. And therefore your Papist, I trow, will hereafter find it best for him not to upbraid us any more with Aerius: yea, but when Traditions were alleged against the old heretics, never any of them denied the authority of some, because other some were not observed; a great piece of matters, we may not do it, because heretics did it not; but can he show us what heretic ever affirmed, that of one bunch or heap of Traditions, some may be taken and some refused; and being all birds of a feather, some may fly away quite, and the rest may in no case fly after, but flutter still in their nest? I wis, Augustine's rule will not help in this case, for fasting upon wednesdays, and not fasting upon Sundays, was as generally observed every where, as any other Tradition that can be named, nay, what Tradition can be more strongly fenced, than that of the age of Christ in Irenaeus? 
Iren. lib. 2. cap. 39 & 40,  evangelium & omnes Seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud johannem discipulum Domini convenerunt, idipsum tradidisse eis johannem, permansit autem cum eis usque ad Traiani tempora, quidam autem eorum non solum johannem, sed & alios Apostolos viderunt, & haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt & testantur de huiusmodi relatione, quibus magis oportet credi? ne his talibus, an Ptolomaeo qui Apostolos nunquam vidit etc. The Gospel and all the Elders which were with john the disciple of the Lord, do testify that john himself did deliver it unto them, and he tarried with them till the time of Trajan: now some of them saw not only john, but other disciples also, and heard the same things of them, & testify of such a report: whom then ought we to believe? whether such men as these, or Ptolomey, who never saw the Apostles? 
Ioh, 6.57.  Here is scripture out of S. john's Gospel, and Tradition from john's mouth, and others of his fellow Apostles, for the exposition of the same, here be all the Elders of Asia that heard it with their own ears, and lived to the days of Irenaeus that writes it, and yet for all this I think the church of Rome will as soon believe Ptolomey the heretic, as this Tradition.  
The like may be said of the celebration of the feast of Easter in the churches of Asia, where the Tradition from Saint john and Saint Philip the Apostles to Polycarp, and so forward, was fresh in memory, observed by many Bishops and Martyrs, 
Euseb. libr. 5. cap. 22.  and confidently and resolutely avouched by Polycrates then angel of Ephesus, and a great multitude of Bishops gathered together in Council under their hands: yet Victor the Pope made no account of it, and within a while after Victor's death, most men think it was condemned for heresy. Now, I pray you, tell us what the Churches of Asia should do in this case? shall they [receive and reverence] this Tradition still [as left them by their Pastors for their spiritual benefit?] what? shall they [receive and reverence] heresy, crossing the decision of a general Council] so saith your Papist, if I understand him, yet I doubt whether [Bede or Pope Gregory, or Austin the Monk] will make good his saying, nay, himself within three or four lines after, eats his word again; for the contrary definition, saith he, was [received and believed of the universal Church,] and so by consequent of the Churches of Asia, notwithstanding all he said before of [their spiritual Pastors and Superintendents,] shall I now tell you what I think? verily if this Tradition of the feast of Easter, and that other of the age of Christ, so credibly reported, so confidently avouched, delivered over to so few hands, and so short a succession, were found hollow and false at the heart in the very next age that followed the Apostles, and at length, as the received opinion is, condemned for heresy: I know not how a man should frame himself to believe such Traditions to be sound and undefiled, which have no such pregnant evidence, and have run through the hands of so many pitchmongers as have lived successively so many hundred years after the death of Victor and Irenaeus.  
Yea but, saith he, this was not universally received and observed, but only of those Churches in Asia, and therefore [we are not bound by S. Austin's rule to receive it, as a Tradition from the Apostles,] well, than succession from hand to hand, and Bishop to Bishop in particular Churches, is not sufficient to make a Tradition apostolical, let him hold that without partiality, as well in Italy as in Asia: Howbeit Polycrates and those worthy Bishops and Martyrs of Asia may not be ruled by S. Austin's rule, and if that Epistle of Polycrates subscribed Synodically by so great a multitude of Bishops may be credited: this Tradition cannot choose but be Apostolical, and so universal in nature, though particular in practice, but what shall we do on the other side with the Tradition of the West Church, which was further fetched than the other by so many winters and summers, as S. john lived after Peter and Paul, that is to say, thirty winters at the least, and so many summers, wherein this western Tradition might well be either Sunne-burnt or weather beaten? shall we follow S. Austin's rule here too, and so believe neither the one nor the other to be Apostolical? ware that, friend Papist, if ye mean to go for a good Catholic; yet it is clear, that the Tradition of the west Church was not [universally received] no more than the other of the East, before the Nicene Council; & therefore either S. Austin's rule was then no rule, or else no Christian for the space of 300. years, was bound to believe that the one was left by S. Peter and S. Paul, no more than the other by S. Philip and S. john; nay, further we read not, that any Canon was made contra Quartadecimanos in the Nicene Council, whereby Epiphanius or any other father should score them up for heretics, but only that it was thought meet the Tessaredecatites being few, 
Euseb. in vita Constant. lib. 3 cap 13. & 17. Socr. lib. 5. cap. 20. & 21. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 18. & 19 Can. 8. Apost.  should yield to the greater number: now whether they yielded or yielded not, we have no sure evidence; only we may strongly conjecture they did not yield, by that we read of this matter in Socrates and Sozomen; as for that peremptory magisterial Canon, which casteth every Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon out of the Church, if he celebrate his Easter ante vernum aequinoctium cum judaeis; it is not known where or when or by whom or what it was enacted, and so consequently where or when or by whom or what it should be obeyed. Wherefore I for my part cannot disallow the resolution of Socrates, that the feast of Easter was never imposed upon the Church by the Apostles, but brought to observation by the free choice and liking of Christian nations, and so continued by long custom, till by the brawling and immoderateness of some wayward men, the Church was constrained to work out her own peace by uniformity.  
Now to Augustine's rule (beside a number of instances which may be brought against it, as namely, the dignity of Alexandria over Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, and the dignity of Rome over the West provinces, which the Council of Nice groundeth neither upon Scripture, Apostle, 
Can. 6. jerom ad Euagr. & in epist. ad Tot. Aug. epist. 19  nor Council, but old custom; as also the appropriating of the name [Bishop] to the chief Ministers, wherein the custom of the Church, no Tradition or Council generally prevailed: to this rule, I say, that it cracks the very crown of the popish church, for nothing not contained in the scriptures could be universally observed, but either Traditions from the Apostles, or else the Decrees of plenary Counsels: it is clear, that the Pope's universal power is shut out of doors; and therefore to requite [the intricate Dilemma] he talks of, let me reason thus with your Papist. The Pope either hath power to impose decrees and constitutions upon the universal Church of Christ, or else he hath not; if he have, then [Austin's rule] is crooked and may deceive us; if he have not, than the Pope's universal shephardship over the whole Church, is come to nothing.  
Howbeit, I beseech you, mark further how he hudleth up contraries, and so marreth the fashion of his own rule, for if all things observed universally must be [followed and embraced] as Traditions from the Apostles, if they be not contained either in scriptures or Counsels: then no man may presume upon any [alteration of states and times] to abolish them, if they may [abolish] them, and [altar] them, then are they not [bound to follow & embrace them:] add hereunto, that as [the Apostles successors] as he saith, might and have alteted and abolished apostolical Traditions [generally practised in the universal Church] so I would see some reason, why they may not still upon the like [alteration] of circumstances [abolish more of them; and so it will follow that [all the doctrine of the Catholics not found in scripture] hangs upon circumstances, and may if it please [the Apostles successors] be quite [abolished,] hath he not spun a fair thread, think you, that thus endangereth his own religion? yet he croweth loud, after all this fond feather-fluttering, that all is as clear as the Sun; yet never durst any Catholic father or church, one or other, set down this remnant of Traditions, and unite it to the body of the canonical Scripture, which infallibly demonstrateth that all is not [as clear as the Sun,] and it is further to be observed, how he is feign to clout out Saint Austin's rule with a new patch which mars all; for when he saw that universal practice is not enough to prove a Tradition apostolical, unless it be traced still downward from the Apostles to our days; 
Are kept  he is not content with (Custodiuntur) which he finds in Austin, but addeth, [have been universally practised from age to age, and from Bishop to Bishop, which no man alive is possibly able to make good in any one unwritten Tradition, popish or catholic, unless the Church had continually appointed in every age, such an one as Sir Francis Drake, that should travel all the world over from Bishop to Bishop, to know and certify the state of all Churches, and yet that policy could not work faith further than the credit of the man, which is a poor stay for a christian conscience.  
Verily the credit of men is but a sandy foundation to build upon in matters not written; seeing your Papist was so foully overseen in [the community of all things] a matter written in great letters, and so determined in the word of God, that all open eyes may see and perceive that it was never universally practised: and whereas it pleaseth him to talk of weeds and bastard plants, that they could not [still remain without check or contradiction, I am sure he hath read in Matthew, 
Sap. 13.25.  that while men slept, the envious man sewd tars among the wheat, and that both should grow together until harvest, and therefore no marvel though the mystery of iniquity grew on still by little and little by reason, of men's sleepiness, and wrought closely, without any effectual contradiction, otherwise it had not been a mystery; yet notwithstanding, when once it was grown so out of fashion, that men saw how ugly and misshaped it was, 
2. Thes. 2.7.8  than the spirit of the Lords mouth began to consume it, and when harvest is come it shall be abolished, neither is it marvel that Counsels and catholic Doctors slept, while the tars of Anti-christian Religion were a sowing, and so ignorantly gave their helping hand to the inthronizing of the man of sin, 
Apoc. 2.13. etc.  for the Angel of Pergamus was a faithful servant of God, yet Satan had erected himself a throne in his Church to teach the doctrine of Baalam, 
Apo. 2.19. etc.  and the Nicholaitans which God hated; the like may be said of that worthy Angel of Thyatira of whom God gave testimony that he knew his love, service, faith, patience, and works to be more at the last, than at the first, yet he suffered the woman jezabel to deceive the servants of God.    

The Dialogue. Sectio. V  
PAp. Now let us return from whence we have digressed, that is to say, unto the searching of the second mortal wound, which (as I have said) you have given unto your own cause by 
a How prove you that we have excluded them?  excluding out of your Church all the ancient Catholic Fathers and Doctors: for admit that you could (by expounding & wresting of scriptures) intrude yourself into such a Church as holdeth no Doctrine, but such as is warranted by the canonical Scriptures; 
b Nonsequitur.  yet must you leave out of the same Church, as Heretics and schismatics, all the ancient Fathers and Bishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, neither are you 
c you measure us by yourselves.  able to name any time or place where or when your Church was extant, or any one Bishop or principal member thereof. Pro. What points of Doctrine are they which the antiquity did hold without warrant of scripture? & what ancient Fathers, Doctors, & Bishops were they that held such doctrine? Pap. In a word, they were all Papists, which being proved, you will not deny the consequent; 
d All the Fathers held not these points, and some of these points were bastards, and have no known Fathers.  they held prayer for the dead, purgatory, transubstantiation, they offered a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, they prayed to Saints, held also vows of chastity, the unlawfulness of Priest's marriage, and the descension of Christ's soul into Hell, call you not this Papistry? I am sure you had rather be in your Church alone, than to be troubled with such papistical Companions: now shall you hear 
e All this hath nothing in it, but facing.  the opinion of every Doctor delivered by his own pen in such plain words, as you shall not be able by any gloss or distinction to pervert, but must needs confess that they were all out of your new Church. I will begin with prayer for the dead, and so go on in order.  

The Answer.  
THe second wound, is come at length to the searching, namely, that all the ancient Fathers and Bishops, must be excluded as heretics, and schismatics out of our Church, and why so? Marry because they held certain points of Doctrine not warranted by the canonical Scriptures, is not this a deep wound think ye? we say indeed, that no other doctrine ought to be curtant in the Church, but such as hath the image and superscription of the Canonical Scriptures: but do you therefore say, that all such as have been carried beyond those limits, through ignorance or infirmity, 
Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  are to be put out for wranglers? Si quis de antecessoribus nostris vel ignoranter, vel simpliciter non hoc obseruavit & tenuit, quod nos dominus facere exemplo & magisterio suo docuit, potest simplicitati eius de indulgentia domini venia concedi, nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nunc à domino admoniti & instructi sumus, If any of our Predecessors, either of ignorance or simplicity, did not observe and keep this which the Lord by his example and commandment hath taught, the Lord of his mercy may pardon his simplicity; but we after we have been admonished and instructed so of the Lord, may look for no pardon. Thus said Cyprian of the Aquarians that were before him, and so say we of the ancient Fathers, that have added the timber, hay, and stubble of traditions, to the gold, silver, and precious stones of Scripture; howbeit, see (I pray you) how your Papist hangs the principal pillars of his Religion upon tradition, and all to wring out the Fathers out of our Church. The Fathers were all Papists, and held prayer for the dead, purgatory, transubstantiation, Sacrifice for quick and dead, prayer to dead Saints, vows of chastity, the single life of Priests, and the descension of Christ's soul into hell; all these trim points of learning, you shall hear now so proved by tradition, out of every Doctor, as you must confess to be super excellent, yet take heed you do not expound these words every Doctor heretically, after the imagination of your own brain; for I dare assure you, he never saw the covers of every Doctor; and therefore you may not understand them simply, as they sound, but charitably, for so many as have writings extant, and could be entreated of this sudden to speak an ambiguous word or two in these matters.    

The Dialogue. Sectio VI Prayer for the dead.  
EPiphanius lib. 3. To. primo. Cap. 75. It appeareth there, that the Heretic Aerius was of your opinion 
a And of yours too, for you dare not pray for the release of incurable sins, as the Church then did, look bet-upon Epiphanius.  concerning Prayer for the dead, and concerning the feast of Easter, and the equality of Ministers, he was a flat Puritan. For he held, that there was no difference between a Priest and a Bishop, he used the 
b Then were they good arguments.  very same arguments, for the maintenance of his Heresy, that the Protestants & Puritans of this time do: for confutation whereof, this ancient Father useth none other 
c His confutation is so much the worse.  argument but the Tradition and continual practice of the Church. I am sure although you do 
d Who told you so?  exclude out of your Church Epiphanius, and all other ancient Fathers: yet Aerius shall be received and entertained as an ancient and principal pillar thereof: but be ye well advised before you put him into your Calendar, for he was also an 
e That's not so soon proved, for Austin followed Epiphanius the first and only author of it.  Arian heretic, as Saint Augustine recordeth; but whatsoever he holdeth else, it sufficeth if he jump with you in any thing against the Catholic.  

The Answer.  
Here comes in Epiphanius and the heretic Aerius once again to walk a turn or two upon the stage: howbeit, it may well be doubted by what authority Aerius was dubbed an heretic; I am sure, Mich. Medina a stout Papist saith, 
De Sacr. homi. orig. & conti. lib. 1. cap. 5.  that jerom, Ambrose, Austin, Sedutius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Aecumenius and Theophilact, were of his opinion in the equality of ministers; Again Aerius was enemy to Eustathius an Arian, and therefore if he had any desire to remove him out of his Bishopric, 
Haeres. 75.  and to sit himself in his room, as Epiphanius reporteth, there is no likelihood that he would be an Arian himself, but keep himself clear to accuse and condemn Eustathius of so capital an heresy; Again the opinion of fasting upon Sunday, and condemning ordinary and set fasting days, 
Lib. 2. cap. 33.  is attributed to Eustathius in Socrates' story, where we read also that he was twice condemned, once in the council of Caesarea Cappadociae by his own father Eueanius, and again the second time in the Council of Gangra in Paph agonia: wherefore I persuade myself that Epiphanius mistook just reprehension for emulation, and charged Aerius with the faults of Eustathius a double condemned heretic, and as very a Papist, as ever Aerius was [a Puritan,] Nuptias fieri prohibuit, à cibis abstinendum docuit, nonnullos qui nuptias contraxerant à connubio segregavit, servos simulatione pietatis dominis abstraxit, benedictionem & communionem presbyteri habentis uxorem tanquam scelus declinandum praecepit etc. He forbade marriage, taught to abstain from meats, some that had been married he separated, he drew servants from their masters under colour of piety, he commanded to shun that blessing and communion of an Elder that had a wife of an heinous wickedness. Call you not this papistry? call it what you will, I am sure it is so, and it is heresy too: 
Concil. Gangr.  by your leave if a nathemasit pronounced by a lawful Council be sufficient to make an heresy; show me the like evidence against Aerius, and I will confess him to be an heretic, otherwise I must crave leave to say of Epiphanius, as Austin doth of Philastrius, 
In praesat. libri de haeres, ad quod.  Multas assertiones inter haereses numeravit, quae haereses non sunt, Many assertions he counted for heresies, which were not heresies. Nay, I will be bold to say further, Multas assertiones haereses non numeravit, quae haereses sunt; Many assertions he counted not heresies, which are heresies. For he hath wittingly concealed the assertions of Eustathius, 
1. Tim. 4.1.3.  which Paul calls [doctrines of devils.]  
Now to the Tradition which Epiphanius bringeth for prayer for the dead, I say in a word, it is accepta à patribus, 
i Received from the Fathers, not from the Apostles.  not [ab Apostolis] and therefore it hath no further credit than man can give it; yet notwithstanding prayer was then made, not after the Popish fashion, to ease the dead of the pains and torments of purgatory but to persuade the living that they are not vanished into nothing, but live and have their being with the Lord, which knocks out the brains of purgatory, for if men ought to believe that the dead for whom prayer is made, do vivere apud dominum; 
Epiph. ibidem haeres. 75.  then may we not think that they do vivere apud inferos in purgatory, but Epiphanius helps you with better store of reasons; you heard the first, namely, quod credant mortuos esse & vivere apud dominum, That they believe that the dead are alive with the Lord. The second, Quod spes sit orantibus profratribus, velut qui in peregrinatione sint, That there is hope to them which pray for their brethren, as to them which want in travailing. The third, Quo id quod perfectius est significetur, To the end, that which is more perfect, may be signified. The fourth,  Dominum jesum Christum ab hominum ordine separent, that they may separate the Lord jesus from the order and state of bare men. The fifth,  adorationem domino praestent, That they may yield adoration to the Lord. The sixth and last he sets down in the words we have in hand, Ecclesia hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta, The Church doth this by tradition received from the fathers. Howbeit, the father's tradition was no more but [memoriam facite,] keep a memory. 
Lib. 1. epist. 9 et lib. 3. epist. 3.  As we may see evidently in Cyprian, whereunto was added by further curiosity, Misericordiam Dei implorate, Beg mercy of God. And at length, Masses and Indulgences, and oblations, and satisfactions: and a whole flood of pickpurse inventions; yea but, may it be said, memoriam facite, is little worth without misericordiam implorate: yes, by your leave, for so the Church thought good to animate and encourage the living to stand constant in persecution, and not to revolt for fear from Christian profession, and touching the craving of mercy for sinners departed, which the Church used to do, most were in Epiphanius time, you heard before all the reasons that Epiphanius could yield, and if you look for more, or better, you must search else where, for Epiphanius cannot help you, but hurt you: for when he saith, preces prosunt, etsi totam culpam non abscindant, prayers profit, though they cut not off the whole fault. He mars the fashion of purgatory, where sins are not forgiven but punished: to be short, if you peruse the words of Aerius, you shall soon find that he never heard of purgatorian doctrine, for when he objecteth that if prayer profit the dead, men need not live godly, or do any good thing in their life time: but purchase friends to pray, that their incurable sins may be laid to their charge, it is most clear he knew not that prayer is not available, where there is no former merit; and that venial, not mortal or incurable sins, are purged by the suffrages of the living.    

The Dialogue. Sectio VII.  
SAint Austin. Pompous funerals, great troops of mourners, sumptuous monuments, these do bring some comfort, such as it is unto the living, but they are not available unto the dead: but we ought 
a What is it that puts the matter out of doubt? let that be showed, and we will doubt no longer.  not to doubt but that the dead are relieved by the prayers of the holy Church, by the wholesome sacrifice, and by alms which are given, that it might please our Lord to deal more mercifully with them, than their sins have deserved. This custom the universal Church doth observe (being delivered by Tradition 
a Austin saith, a patribus, not, ab Apostolis.  from the Apostles) that, whereas at the time of the sacrifice, commemoration is made of 
b All communicants, and only communicants are prayed for, is this catholic doctrine think you?  all souls departed in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, they should be prayed for, and that the sacrifice also should be offered for them, de verb. Apost. sermon. 32. We ought 
c Nor we ought not to say it, unless we could prove it.  not to deny that the souls of the dead are relieved, by the devotion of their living friends, when as either the sacrifice of our Redeemer is offered for them, or alms given in the Church. Enchir. ad Laurent. prope fin. When the Martyrs are mentioned at the altar of God, they are not prayed for: but 
d What all? confessors, bishops, pope's and all?  all other which are dead, which are there remembered, are prayed for, de verb. Apostol. serm. 17. When the sacrifice, whether it be of the altar, or of alms deeds, is offered for such as are dead 
e Why not before as well as after? you may as well offer for the unbaptized, as for those that be valdé mali.  after Baptism, for those that be very good, they be thanksgiving; for those which be not very evil, they be propitiatory; for those which be very evil, although they profit not the dead, yet are they some comfort unto the living, Dulcitij question. quest. 2. Read his epistle ad Aurelium Episcopum, and his Treatise de cura pro mortuis. This was (no doubt) S. Austin's 
f Or else you know not what faith is.  faith, which he wrote, taught, and practised in his church, and which was at that time generally received in the Latin Churches.  

The Answer.  
AVstine belike is plentiful in this question, for we have here four several places out of his works, which we will briefly run over as they come: In the first Austin is forced to turn his tale, for whereas before where this place was alleged for Tradition; prayer for the dead, was no more but a Tradition of the fathers: here Austin is entreated to say, that it was delivered by Tradition from the Apostles; me thinks your Papist should know that our writers allege this very place of Austin, to show that this manner of praying was received of the Church long after the Apostles time, 
Decad. 4. serm. 10.  as for example Bullinger in his Decades, Illud dissimulare non possum, saith he, id quod isti traditionem Apostolorum appellant, S. Augustinum nuncupare traditionem patrum ab ecclesia receptam, nam sermone de verbis Apostoli 32. hoc à patribus (inquit) traditum universa observat ecclesia, etc. This I cannot hide, that that which they call a traditon of the Apostles, 
Quest. 1.  Augustine calleth a tradition of the Fathers received by the Church, see Serm. de verbis Apostoli. 32. This (saith he) being delivered by the Fathers doth the whole Church observe. And a little after concludeth, His significantius innuere videtur hunc ritum orandi pro defunctis, haud dubie post longa internalla à temporibus Apostolorum ab ecclesia receptum esse, By these words he seemeth more thoroughly to insinuate, that this custom of praying for the dead, was without all doubt received by the Church a long space after the Apostles times. Wherefore this budgening and setting down quid, pro quo, in so material a testimony, argueth a perverse resolution, rather to quench the fire of truth, than the stubble and straw of our errors should be consumed. But for answer, I say, that Austin himself doubted of that which here he saith we ought not to doubt of; thus he writes in the questions of Dulcitius, Sieve in hac vita tantum homines ista patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret, quantùm arbitror à ratione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae, Whether men suffer these things only in this life, or whether after this life, some such judgements follow, this understanding of this sentence, is not without some show of truth as I suppose. Also in his Books De Civitate Dei, 
Lib. 21. cap. 26  Sive ibi tantum, sive hic & ibi, sive ideo hic ut non ibi, saecularia, quamuis à damnatione venialia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est, Whether things committed in this world, though venial in respect of damnation, do find a transitory fire of tribulation here only, or here and there, or therefore here, because not there; I seek not to convince, because perhaps it is true; and in his Enchiridion, 
Cap. 69.  Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri, incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, That some such thing is done after this life, it is not incredible; and whether it be so done, it is a question. Now than if Austin himself doubted whether men be punished transitorily after this life: I know your Papist will give us leave to doubt, whether the dead be relieved by our prayers.  
Moreover, it is here likewise to be observed, that no soul were prayed or offered for, or thought worthy to be remembered at the Altar, but such as departed in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, 
Lib. 1. Contr. julian. & lib. 1 de peccat. merit. & remiss. Concil. 6. cap. 83. & Carth. Con. 3. cap. 6.  which includeth a general belief of those times, that none but Communicants could be saved; and therefore Austin urgeth it as hotly, as any other tradition, that the Eucharist, as well as Baptism, was necessary to the salvation of all, even of new borne babes, whereof it cometh, that the bread & wine was then thrust into the mouths of Infants, and dead carcases, both in the Greek and Latin Churches. Forasmuch then as this place of Austin, teacheth two points of general doctrine, one that prayers, Sacrifices, and alms do profit the dead; the other, that none can be saved but Communicants, and so prayers, and sacrifices, and doles to be made for no other: we think ourselves no more bound to receive the one at Austin's hand, than Papists think themselves bound to receive the other.  
Furthermore, these Offices of the living are here said to procure greater mercy at God's hands, than the sins of the dead have deserved; where observe, that the sway of the time so carried both Paulinus and Austin, two worthy renowned Bishops, that the one would not yield though he could not tell how to answer Saint Paul's authority; 
2. Cor. 5.10. Cap. 7. par. 3.  and the other sheltered himself, as Denys doth in his Hierarchy under a short heeled answer that's ready to fall backward if you do but look upon it; Paul saith, We must receive every man according to that he hath done in the body, either good, or evil: Here Paulinus is at his wit's end, and cannot tell how this can agree with prayers, sacrifices, alms, and the Patronage of dead Martyrs, and such like human inventions, and yet he sticks in the mire still, and desires Austin to help him out: see now how Austin answereth, Meritum, per quod ista profint, si nullum comparatum est in hac vita, frustra quaeritur post hanc vitam, If there be no merit, by which these things may do good, 
Libr. de cura pro mortu. Cap. 1.  gotten in this life, it is in vain to seek it after this life. And a little after,  hoc quod impenditur possit ei prodesse post corpus, in ea vita acquisitum est quam gessit in corpore; That this which is bestowed may profit him after the body, it is purchased in this life which he lived in the body. But what merit is this he talks of? doth it respect God or man? if man, than man must reward it; if God, why the Apostle assureth us by Commission from God, 
2. Cor. 5.10.  that we shall receive good, according to that good we have done in the flesh; and therefore all such prayers & sacrifices are superfluous: again the prayers & sacrifices of the living, depending upon our former merits, must needs procure either less, or the same, or more mercy than we have merited in our life time; if less, than they hinder us; if the same, then do they not further us; if more, then do we not receive according to the good that we have done in the body, as Paul saith, but according to the prayers & sacrifices of our friends. Here your Papist hath a Dilemma, & a Trilemma too to work upon, if he can do any thing, Austin & Paulinus shall be beholding to him; if nothing, them Paul the Apostle must have the victory.  
In the mean time the very same Dilemma and Trilemma too must repel the force of the next place cited out of Austin's Enchiridion, 
Cap. 100  for there Austin addeth immediately, Sed eis hac prosunt, qui cum viverent, ut haec sibi postea prodesse possent, meruerunt, But these things profit them, who when they lived, deserved that they might profit them afterward. Wherefore Austin using the same shift to rid his hands of Saint Paul's authority. 
Vid. Lumb. Eb. 4. distinct. 45. D.  I must use the same answer to defend it; if two men of equal merit be inequally rewarded, because prayers and sacrifices are offered for the one, and not for the other, than every man receiveth not according to that himself hath done in the flesh, but according to that other men do for him, when he is out of the flesh. Howbeit, this second place of Austin speaks not of prayers, but sacrifices and alms given in the Church, which belongeth to the fourth point of doctrine, to wit, sacrifice for the quick and dead; if your Papist think that sacrifice and prayers go together, let him take heed he be not deceived, for Cyprian speaking of Laurentius and Ignatius Martyrs, saith thus, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 5. de verb. Apo. serm. 17. & in joh. tract. 84.  Sacrificia pro eis semper, ut meministis, offerimus; We always as you know, offer sacrifices for them. Yet Austin saith, that Martyrs [are not prayed for,] and that it is injurious to pray for them, but because he dispatcheth two of his points at once, let this place and some other of Cyprian, strike some stroke in this question of Sacrifice, we offer Sacrifices for Martyrs, saith he, Quoties Martyrum passiones & dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus, As often as we celebrate the sufferings & days of the Martyrs, with a yearly remembrance. And this sacrificing pro Martyribus, Austin himself confesseth to be nothing else but praise & thanksgiving, and so he celebrated the day of Cyprians Martyrdom; yea, but though Martyrs be not prayed for, 
Serm. de Cyp. Mart. in oper. Cypr.  when they are remembered at the Altar; yet all other which are there mentioned, are prayed for, saith Austin in the third place: and in the last place, sacrifices (saith he) for those that be Valdè boni, very good, be thanksgiving; but for those that be not Valde mali, Very evil, they be propitiatory. I see what Saint Austin saith, yet all other beside Martyrs stood not in need of relief, as namely, the patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Confessors, the Bishops, the Anachorits, and our most holy, unspotted, most blessed Lady, God's Mother the Virgin Marie: All these, I trow, were not Martyrs, yet were they all prayed for in the liturgies of Basile, Chrysostome, and Epiphanius not to relieve them, but to glorify God in his servants, and to profit the Church by commemoration of their virtues; it cannot be denied, but God blessed his Church continually with many such as were Valde boni beside Martyrs, and therefore either prayers and Sacrifices go not always one way, or else some of these places of Austin must needs fall.  
Howbeit, to return to Saint Cyprian, we read that it was decreed by his predecessors, that if any brother at his death should leave the execution of his will to any of the Clergy, he should not be offered nor sacrificed for; now followeth the approbation and practice of this decree, in in these words, Cum victor frater noster de saeculo excedens contra formam nuper in concilio à sacerdotibus datam, 
Libr. 1. epist. 9  Gemintum Faustinum praesbyterum ausus sit actorem constituere: non est quo pro dormitione eius apud vos fiat oblatio aut de precatio aliqua nomine eius in ecclesia frequentetur, ut sacerdotum decretum religiosè & necessariè factum servetur etc. Seeing victor our brother departing out of this world, durst contrary to the order taken of late by the Priests in the Council, appoint Geminius Faustinus a Priest his executor; there is no reason why you should make any offering for his decease, or that the Church should meet to deprecation for his sake, that the religious and necessary ordinance of the Priests may be observed. Thus far Cyprian, out of which I gather, that if these offerings and sacrifices and deprecations had been made for refrigeration of souls departed: then Cyprian and his Colleagues and predecessors that made and executed this law, had been most unmerciful and most cruel and savage tyrants, that wrote their decrees with the blood of souls; and so we read in one of the Sermons Ad fratres in Heremo clamant quotidiè defuncti qui jacent in tormentis, 
Serm. 44.  clamant, & pauci sunt qui respondeant, ululant, & non est qui consoletureos, o quàm grandis crudelitas, fratres mei, o quàm grandis inhumanitas, clamant ad nos quotidiè, nec eis subvenire curamus, o verè magna inhumanitas, The dead that lie in torments cry daily, they cry, and few there are that answer; they howl and there is none to comfort them; oh how great cruelty is this my brethren? oh how great inhumanity? they cry to us daily, and we have no care to help them, or verily great inhumanity. far was this inhumanity from Cyprian, and the other good bishops of Africa; and therefore far were they from believing, that praying and sacrificing did either help or hurt their dead brethren.  
Moreover, 
Lib. 4. epist. 5.  we must understand that the commemoration of the dead was celebrated but once a year, so saith Cyprian of the Martyrs, and so saith Tertullian of them that were no Martyrs, neither is it like that the memory of any Christian had more days bequeathed unto it, 
Lib. decor. milit.  than the memory of a Martyr: now I beseech you, consider what humanity or charity this was, to relieve our brethren that were broiled and scorched in extreme torments, but once a year, and to leave them to their clamant quotidiè all the year after? may not a purgatory-monger cry out here to, o quàm grandis crudelitas, o verè magna inhumanitas? Verily I must think so till I be better informed; and this is yet further strengthened, in that these anniversary days were celebrated festivally cum ingenti letitia, with great joy: for had they believed that the souls of the brethren rested not blessedly from their labours, as the spirit saith, 
Apoc. 14.13.  but were tormented miserably in purgatory, as your Papist saith; verily these days had been days of fasting and mourning, not days of feasting and rejoicing, I could observe further that oblatio, or deprecatio, or facrificium pro dormitione, importeth not relieving of souls, but a thankful remembrance to God for the quiet and Christian departure of our brother, with a commemoration thereof to the profit and comfort of the living, but this that hath been said, is sufficient to show the innocency of Cyprians riches from these popish abuses.  
Now let us consider a little before of Austin's fourth place, for the third is sensibly false, confuted, as you heard, in the old Liturgies, & by Austin himself in the first place, where he saith, that we should pray for all communicated souls; and in the last two, where he saith, that sacrifice is offered, Pro baptizatis defunctis omnibus, 
Cap. cum Marthae.  For all deceased after baptism, for [all that are dead after baptism.] Now then touching the distinction of souls, which this last place doth afford us, it is found long ago to want a leg, and so to be lame and imperfect: for Pope Innocent the third will needs have it go upon four legs; namely, a very good one, a very bad one; an indifferent good one, and an indifferent bad one, and Austin himself grants as much in his books De Civitate Dei, 
Lib. 21. ca 24. cap. 110. Lib. 4. dist. 40.  and in his Enchiridion, as the master of Sentences hath cited him; so by this reckoning we must find out another purgatory, for indifferent good souls: for seeing suffrages avail them ad expiationem, to expiation, as Innocentius saith; or as Lombard mends the matter, ad plenam absolutionem, to full absolution; they must have a new purgatory needs, for the old will receive none but such as have filth to purge, and are stayed by some inquinament or other from entering into heaven, and Austin tells us that all good souls departed, have joy; and all evil soul's torments. 
In joh. tract. 49.  I doubt your papist will be foully troubled before he show us what joy souls have in purgatory: and here observe further, that the souls which papists send to purgatory, though they be not valdè malae, yet they be malae in Austin's opinion, whereof it followeth that at the general resurrection, their torments will be more grievous, Habent omnes animae, cum de saeculo exierint, diversas receptiones suas, habent gaudium boni, mali tormenta, sed cum facta fuerit resurrectio, & bonorum gaudium amplius erit, & malorum tormenta graviora quando cum corpore torquebuntur. All souls after they go out of the world, have divers rewards, the good have joy, & the bad torments, but when the resurrection shall come the joy of the good shall be greater; and the torments of the bad more grievous when they shall be tormented in their bodies. This will hardly agree with the popish purgatory, which is said to be the high way to heaven, not to hell; again, it being granted that non valdè malae, be malae; not very evil, be evil. Notwithstanding it will follow likewise, that they must continue evil still, and so never become good, that so they may flit from purgatory to heaven, for there the tree must lie, saith the wise man, where it falleth: 
Eccles. 11.3. Serm. 49. ex parvis.  which place Jerome expoundeth of the immutability of the soul after this life, either in good or evil; and so doth Barnard in one of his Sermons, but admit the soul may be changed, and be made a good soul, of an evil soul: now consider what it is that works this change, whether our suffrages, or the fire of purgatory; suffrages work no more than we have merited in our life time, as we have seen before, having merits in our life time, we have our quietus est in our life time, and so purgatory and suffrages are both discharged: as for the fire of purgatory, 
Bellar. depurg. lib. 2. cap. 6.  it is the same with the fire of hell, Theologi ferè omnes docent eodem igne torqueri damnatos & animas purgatorij. Now if this fire have power in purgatory so to burn away sin, that it purifieth an evil soul, and changeth it from evil to good; it would be known why the same fire in hell doth not change souls from valde malae, to non valde malae by the like consumption of sin, and so bring them on from hell to purgatory, and from thence to heaven: if it be said that purgatory fire takes away sin, not by way of purification, but by way of satisfaction, though this blasphemy be sufficiently confuted by the Prophet Esay, 
Cap. 53.5.  who assureth us that the chastisement of our peace fell upon Christ, and that we are heated by his stripes: yet forasmuch are mortal sin, in his own nature is not infinitely more punishable than venial: it will follow, that if hell fire satisfy the justice of God in the one, it will also in proportional time satisfy in the other, which is not a coits cast from the heresy of the Chiliasts.  
Observe yet further that Austin here seems contented that the pearl of the body and blood of Christ should be laid to pawn for very evil souls, even the cursed enemies of God, and laboureth to excuse it when he hath done; such sacrificing, saith he, is some comfort to the living, as if it were lawful to pleasure the affections of men, with the prostitution of the mysteries of God, & where he saith elsewhere, 
Lib. de Cura pro mort. cap. 18. Harding Artic. 19  oportet, we must offer for all, quia non discernimus, because we cannot sever the good from the bad: I answer, that his quia doth not make good his oportet, for the Sacrifice consisting of dead elements, cannot apply itself without prayer, and by prayer we may easily discard evil and cursed souls, and so apply this pretended plaster to such sores only as may be cured.  
There is yet one excuse more behind, where he tells us, that it is better our sacrifices should be offered for such as can have no benefit by them, 
Lib. de Cura pro mort. cap. vlt.  quám ut desint ijs qui egent, sicut benefacimus iniustis in hoc mundo, ne praetereantur justi, then that they which have need should want, as we do good to the unrighteous in the world, lest the righteous should not be regared. This excuse were something worth, if sacrificare pro valdè malis were commanded, as benefacere iniustis is; but sacrificing for damned souls, being simply evil, we must learn of Paul, 
Rom. 3.8.  not to do evil, that good may come of it.  
Howbeit these two last excuses teach us, that we cannot help Purgatory unless we pray for Hell; we must offer for the unjust that be in hell, or else the just that be in purgatory must be pretermitted, and this is done for both, nay, for all, tag and rag, with all indifferency of words and deeds, in one uniform generality of prayer, otherwise the living, seeing their dead in any one point neglected, cannot conceive comfort, but grief and discouragement; now, I beseech you, consider how this general oblation can possibly be so parted among dead souls, that for some it is eucharistical, for other some propitiatory, and for some a mere nullity: but what speak I of parting? it must be all eucharistical for those that be valdè boni; it must be all propitiatory for those that be non valdè mali; and for all other, either consolatory to the living, or nullatory to the damned, is this possible think you? we cannot offer for Martyrs and Martyrs fellows, without agimus tibi gratias; we cannot offer for Purgatorians without prasta quaesumus, and how both these can be confounded in one applicatory prayer, as it were ale and beer in one pot to serve all turns at once; it is far beyond the reach of my wit to conceive.  
Besides this, there remaineth yet another inconvenience, in that Austin holds the sacrifice of alms at as high a price, in this office of relieving souls, as the sacrifice of the altar, and so the quality of his speech seemeth to import; for when Paul saith, 
Ephes. 6.8.  unusquisque quod fecerit boni, hoc recipiet a Domino sive servus, sive liber, What good thing soever a man doth, that shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond, or free: He giveth us to understand, that in respect of the Lords rewarding of virtue, bond and free are of equal regard. And therefore when Austin saith, Sacrificia pro defunctis propitiationes sunt, sive altaris, sive quarumcunque eleemosinarum, Sacrifices for the dead be propitious, whether they be of the altar, or of any alms whatsoever: his meaning is, that these two sacrifices, in respect of propitiating the dead, are of equal estimation. I doubt whether your Papist will allow this for currant divinity, that in any work of our redemption, corruptible things, 
1. Pet. 1.18.19  as silver and gold given in alms, should be aequallized to the precious blood of Christ, which he dreams to be really present in the Sacrament: and if it should happen that this absurdity will not stop his course; yet when Chrysostome yieldeth greater power to the sacrifice of Alms, than to the sacrifice of the Altar, I trow he will stop there, if he be not desperate, look his Sermons upon the Philippians, 
Serm. 3.  and there you shall find that such as died without Baptism, called Catechumeni, finding no help in the prayers and other sacrifices of the Church, were notwithstanding somewhat relieved by alms giving in their names to the poor, Omni huiusmodi destituti sunt auxilio, saith he, uno quodam dempto, quonam illo? pauperibus illorum nomine dare licet, undeillis nonnihil refrigerij accedit; they are destitute of every such help, one only excepted: and what is that? men may give somewhat to the poor for their sakes, whereby they receive some refreshing: herehence therefore we may safely gather, I think, that Austin and Chrysostom's sacrifice was not the same with the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein a popish shaveling priest without all shame or fear of God, offereth the Son of God to his Father.  
Concerning the Treatise, de cura pro mortuis agenda; 
Instit. lib. 3. 5. 10.  Caluin hath truly censured it in these words, Tot haetitationes continet, ut suo frigore meritò debeat stulti zeli calorem extinguere, etc. It containeth so many doubts, that the coldness thereof, might justly extinguish the heat of foolish zeal. And a little after, haec una ect fultura quia invaluit consuetudo, etc. If that book have any better helps than haesitations, and likelihoods, and custom, let them be brought to light that we may see them; if it have no other, no reason the bare frozen authority of any man living or dead, hanging upon unchawed and undigested conjectures, should keep us in prison.  

Epist. 64.  The Epistle to Aurelius, which we are likewise willed to read, hath this saying, Oblationes pro spiritibus dormientium, quas vere aliquid adiware credendum est, super ipsas memorias non fint sumptuosae, atque omnibus petentibus sive typho, & cum alacritate prebeantur, nequé vendantur, sed si quis proreligione aliquid pecuniae offerre volverit, in praesenti pauperibus erogetur, ita nec deserere videbuntur memorias suorum, quod potest gignere non levem cordis dolorem, & id celebrabitur in ecclesia quod piè honestequé celebratur. The offerings for the souls of the dead, which we must believe, do indeed somewhat help, let them not be sumptuous over their memories, and let them be given to all that ask them without disdain & cheerfully, & not sold: but if any man for religions sake will offer any money, let it be presently bestowed on the poor: so shall men not seem to forsake the memories of their friends, which might be occasion of no small grief of heart, and that which is celebrated in the Church, shall be godlily and honestly celebrated. It is not very easy to guess what these oblations were, for the sacrament cannot be sumptuous, unless we met some precious stone of great value in the Communion Cup, as Cleopatra did in a cup of Ippocras, other oblations cannot be sold, nor yet given to every one that asketh them, if it be said that the sacrament might be called sumptuous, not in itself, but in regard of the pomp and costly braveries of funerals: it is easily seen, that Austin here speaks not of funerals, but memorials; which as they were sumptuous, so were they celebrated with feasting and joy, not with mournful calling upon God for a jail delivery, and therefore we may better understand this same aliquid adiunare, somewhat to help; of helping the living, who otherwise might conceive sorrow of heart, or, of the inflaming of men's devotion to zeal and fervency of prayer, when they behold the representation of the death of Christ in the reverend mysteries, then of offering Christ in sacrifice to God his father for the relief of the dead, Vero aliquid adiware credendum est, We might believe that they do indeed help somewhat, saith Augustine, but that every one that celebrated the memory of his friend, should believe that his friend's soul was in purgatory, craving yearly relief at his hands; that saith not Austin: it may be his friend's soul was in heaven, it may be it was in hell; it may be it was delivered out of purgatory the last year, or the year before, and therefore it may be that oblations could not help him, and so consequently that Austin's [credendum] in this case, is no whit better than an [ignorandum] howbeit you may tell your papist that this place is not for his profit, for if his massing soul Priest may not sell his oblations and prayers, but give them freely and cheerfully to all that ask: the poor man will hardly be able to keep a Concubine; Austin saw that veniale peccatum, venial sin, was like to prove, venale, venal, or set to sale, and therefore he saith, prebeantur neque vendantur, let them be given, not sold. But now, no money, no mass, no penny no pater noster. Wherefore to conclude all in a word, if this had been Austin's faith, he would not have taught it so loosely and untowardly, yet howsoever he teacheth it, as faith, or opinion, or custom, or what else soever; the faith of one modern sacrifice Sacrificatorians is of another Edition.    

The Dialogue. Sectio. VIII.  
SAint Ambrose who 
a This Ambrose never saw S. Austin nor S. Austin him.  converted Saint Austin to the faith, die likewise hold and practise the same doctrine: for thus he prayeth before the celebration of the divine mysteries. Let the invisible form of the Holy Ghost descend to teach me thine unworthy Priest, reverently to handle so high a mystery, that thou mayest mercifully receive at my hands this sacrifice, to the help both of quick and dead, Precatio prima praeparans ad 
b The word Missa is not to be found in all Ambrose.  missam.  

The Answer.  
BElike Ambrose and Austin must agree in all points, because the one converted the other, otherwise this tale of Austin's conversion is told out of season: but by your leave if this counterfeit prayer be construed after the Popish fashion, I doubt whether Austin will give it allowance, Howbeit, supposing this jacke Straw to be the right Ambrose, I answer that he speaks not here of this mystery, as it is a sacrament, putting us in mind of God, for then the virtue of it could not depend upon the worthiness, the reverent or irreverent handling of the Priest, but as it is a sacrifice, putting God in mind of us: now if Ambrose purposed to offer up the very body and blood of the son of God in sacrifice to his father, the absurdity of receiving it mercifully in regard of his reverent handling remaineth still, for the real body and blood of Christ had been acceptable to God of itself without help of Ambroses' holiness: 
Contr. epist. Par. lib. 2. cap. 8.  Austin could not abide that Parmenian should say that the Bishop is mediator between God and the people, and avoucheth, that if Saint john had taken so much upon him: every good faithful Christian would have taken him for Antichrist, rather than the Apostle of Christ, and therefore, if Ambrose had prayed that God would mercifully receive the body and blood of his son at his hands, making himself mediator between the son of God and his father, as Popish Priests venture to do at this day in the Church of Rome; I may well think Austin, notwithstanding his conversion, would have detested it. 
Lib. 4. part. 2.  Cum sacerdos oraverit prohostia transubstantianda, eamque transubstantiatam patri obtulerit orat pro ipsius acceptatione When the Priest prayeth for transubstantiating of the host, and doth offer it being transubstantiated to the father, he prayeth for the acceptation of it. Thus saith Durand: and the Priest in the Mass desireth God to look Propitio ac sereno vultu, propitiously and cheerfully, upon the body and blood of Christ his son, and to receive the same, as once he received the sacrifice of Abel etc. This is a presumptuous and a desperate blasphemy, yet must we either make Ambrose guilty of it in this prayer, or else see him discharged of transubstantiation, There is a full discourse in Irenaeus, where it is proved out of the Scriptures, 
Lib. 4. cap. 34.  that God ever accepted him that offered, better than the offering, and that no oblation is pleasing unto God, when he that offereth it doth not please him better, and therefore it is said in Genesis, 
Cap. 4.4.5.  that the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering, but unto Cain and his offering he had no regard; and if the offering of a wicked man were acceptable to God, it had been out of season to charge that man to go away from the Altar, to be reconciled with his brother, 
Matth. 5.23.  before he presume to offer his oblation, so long as a man chooseth his own ways, and inwardly delighteth in abominations; 
Esa. 66.23. etc.  his kill of a bullock is as if he slew a man; his sacrificing a sheep, as if he cut off a dog's neck; his offering an oblation, as if he offered swine's flesh; and such a man's offering incense to God, is as if he blessed an idol. It cometh to pass often among men, that the wicked is accepted for his gift, and so absolved because the judge is either needy or covetous; but God hath no need of our sacrifices, he neither eats the flesh of Bulls, nor drinks the blood of Goats, 
Psal. 50.30.  he neither eats bread, nor drinks wine, but looks favourably upon him and his sacrifice, that hath an humble and contrite heart, and trembleth at his word, and therefore well concludeth that ancient Father, Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus, sed conscientia eius qui offered, sanctificat sacrificium pura existens, & praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico, Sacrifices therefore do not sanctify a man; for God hath no need of sacrifice, but the conscience of him that offereth being, pure doth sanctify the sacrifice, and causeth that God receiveth it as of his friend. I trow your Papist will look about him, before he presume to say that the purity of a Popish Priest's conscience sanctifieth the son of God, and makes him to be accepted of his father, and so learn that this sacrifice which could not acceptably be received of God, unless the holy Ghost did invisibly teach Ambrose to handle it with due reverence, was not the sacrifice of the Mass, but the Eucharistical sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  
Yea but, may it be said, how can praise and thanksgiving help both the quick and dead? how, say you? and how can the Mass do it? I am sure, I can show the one with more ease, than any man living can show the other; for it is easily understood, that prayer is more devout and fervent and forcible, when our souls are possessed of the graces of God offered in the Sacrament, as being then more inflamed with the love of God, that hath not spared his own Son, but gave him over to death for our redemption, and we may well be said to help the dead, 
Apoc. 7.10. & 6.10. 1. Cor. 54. etc. Luke 21.28. Rom. 8.23. Act. 3.19.  when we join with them in praising God, and in prayer to repress the rage of Tyrants, and speedy coming of the Lord jesus to vanquish death, and to accomplish our redemption, and theirs in that day, which Peter calleth the day of refreshing: And that this, or some such thing as this, is the help of quick and dead, 
In orat. de obit: Theod. In orat: de obit: Valent:  which Ambrose meaneth, his own practice will evince it, for he rejoiceth that Theodosius reigned with Christ, yet he prayeth God to grant him optatam requiem, desired rest. So likewise of Valentinians soul he saith, that it was beautiful as the Moon, chosen as the Sun, a blessed soul, that looked down from above upon us that be here beneath; and that both Valentinian and Gratian his brother did enjoy the pleasures of eternal life, yet thus he addeth immediately in the same place, beati ambo, si quid meae orationes valebunt, nulla dies vos silentio praeteribit, nulla nox non donatos aliqua praecum mearum contextione transcurret, omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo, Both are blessed ones, if my prayers can do any thing, no day shall pass you over with silence, no night shall run over, in which I will not give you some labour of my prayers, I will frequent you in or with all offerings; here is a Mass of requiem, for Theodosius, and store of prayers and sacrifices for Gratian and Valentinian, yet because Ambrose converted Austin, and both held the same doctrine, thus must we resolve, Sacrificia pro valdè bonis gratiarum actiones sunt, Sacrifices for those that be very good, are thanksgivings, saith Augustine; but Theodosius, Gratian and Valentinian were valdè boni, for their souls did shine as the morning star, and had the fruition of eternal bliss in heaven, So Ambroses' prayers and Sacrifices were not propitiatory, but eucharistical, and if this resolution please not your Papist, then let him consider, that Austin in his Confessions prayeth thus for his mother, Promisisti misericordiam misericordibus, & credo iam feceris, quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine; Thou hast promised mercy to the merciful, and I believe thou hast done that already which I desire, yet approve o Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth: and let him conclude thereof, that Ambrose to show his love and affection, prayed voluntary for Theodosius, Gratian, and Valentinian, as Austin did for his mother Monica.    

The Dialogue. Sectio IX.  
SAint Chrysostome, it was not without cause ordained of the Apostles, that in the dreadful Mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead, as a thing whereby much profit and advantage doth redound unto them, for when the whole congregation, & the priests do stand together, with their hands stretched forth toward heaven: how can we choose but entreat 
a To do what? to give them rest? then never pray more but once, if the Lord must needs be entreated by your prayer.  our Lord for them by our prayers? but this is to be understood of those only which are departed in the faith. And again in the same Homily, Why dost thou, after the death of thy friends, call together the poor? Why dost thou beseech the priests to pray for them? I know thou wilt answer, that they may attain unto rest: that they may find the judge favourable. Tom. 4. ad populum homilia 69.  

The Answer.  
CHrysostome, though he might say, Voluntaeria oris mei approba domine, Approve the free-will offerings of my mouth, as well as either Ambrose or Austin: yet he thought himself bound to remember the dead, at the ministration of the dreadful mysteries, even by the Apostles ordinance, Austin never durst say any more of that order, but that it was traditum à patribus, delivered by the Fathers, no more durst Epiphanius; neither is it credible that either of them would hinder the credit of it, so much as to father it upon the Fathers, if they had thought the Apostles had ordained it: 
Lib. 1. Epist. 9  we heard before that Cyprians Predecessors decreed, that if a Christian brother dying, should appoint a Clerk overseer of his goods, the sacrifice should not be celebrated for him, which neither they would have ventured to enact, nor Cyprian and the godly Bishops of his time to approve and practise, if they had surmised the Apostles had decreed the contrary. Again, when Chrysostome demandeth, how we can choose but entreat the Lord for the dead? It may be demanded of him again, what he would obtain for such as are departed in the faith, for he dares pray for no other: if answer be made, he desires they may attain unto rest; he would be told that in fide abscedere, to departed in faith, and in fide requiescere, to rest in faith, are all one; yet thus he prayeth in his Liturgy, Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus, We offer thee this reasonable service, for those that rest in the faith; And so desires rest for them that be in rest already; and indeed so it must be, not because Chrysostome prayeth so, but because the spirit of God saith so, Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, 
Apoc. 14.13.  for they rest from their labours. This place is clear; yet Bellarmine hath scraped together two answers, one out of Anselmus, who saith, that Saint john speaks of the time, that followeth the last judgement, which is absurd; for than he would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from thenceforth, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from henceforth; his other answer out of Haimo and Richardus. De S. Victore, restrains the comfort of this heavenly voice to Martyrs and perfect men, which is a male part impounding of the grace of God common to all that keep the commandments of God, and live and die in the faith of jesus, it will trouble Bellarmine, and Victor: let father Haimo help them to persuade wise men, that Meri in Domino, to die in the Lord, is more proper to perfect men; than (Nubere in Domino, 
1. Cor. 7.39.  to marry in the Lord) to perfect women: howbeit, these two answers play at hard-head, and beat out one another's brains: Anselmus cannot abide we should allow the one, and Haimo and Victor willbe stark angry with us, if we allow the other, and therefore, to please both sides, it will be our best way to allow neither.  
But to proceed, Chrysostome makes another petition for the dead, [that they may find the judge favourable,] wherein we must consider two things; the sentence of the judge, and the Execution. The sentence is either particular presently after death, 
Eccles. 11.26.  or general at the last day in the clouds of heaven: touching the former Chrysostom's petition for [favour] comes too late; and touching the other, it must needs be either venite benedicti patris mei, come ye blessed of my father; or else, ite maledicti in ignem aeternum, 
Math. 25.34.41.  go ye cursed into hell fire: no praying or sacrificing can either revoke or alter this sentence, Ego jehova, & non mutor, I am the Lord, 
Malac. 3.6. Genes. 18.25.  and change not: and as the Lord is immutable, so his sentence both first and last, is just: Shall not the judge of the world do right? saith Abraham, as if he should say, it is impossible it should be otherwise: wherefore if any [favour] be to be found, it must be in the execution. 
Psal. 103.20.  Now the Executioners (being either Angels or Devils) Angels must do the will of God as it is enjoined them; at the devils hands no [favour] can be looked for, now what's next? verily it is hard to tell, unless we call upon God to rectify that which is right, to mend that which is not amiss, to undo that which is done well, and to mitigate that punishment which is no sharper than it ought to be; it may well stand with the folly of man's affections to make such prayers, but it will hardly stand with the wisdom and justice of God to give them the hearing, Suffragia aut ad hoc prosunt, ut plena sit remissio, 
Enchirid. cap. 110.  aut tolerabilior damnatio, saith Austin, Suffrages are profitable to make either remission of sins more perfect, or damnation more tolerable; but how remission or mitigation of an absolute and a just sentence damnatorie, Ad supplicium tantum & tale, To punishment so great and of such quality: being under execution, can possibly stand with Ego jehova & non mutor in Malachy: it passeth the reach of all the wit & learning I have to determine. Wherefore well might Chrysostome say, Noverunt, the Apostles knew, what profit redounded to the dead, by commemoration in the dreadful mysteries, for he himself knew not how the prayers of Priest and people could profit the dead, much less how annual commemorations could do it.  
And here let it be considered, how untowardly Chrysostome disputeth, the Apostles knew that commemoration of the dead at the altar was profitable unto them; Ergo, the Apostles ordained it should be so. I will not stand upon the sequel, let that go for good; but how knew Chrysostome what the Apostles knew? who revealed their counsel unto him? if any body told him; what reason had he to believe it? if no body told him; what reason had he to say it? and therefore he that loves Chrysostome best, must needs confess that his antecedent is more doubtful than his conclusion, but when he reasoneth further, that the people and Priest stretching out their hands to heaven, must needs appease God's wrath; Ergo, commemoration of the dead is profitable: he is much overseen, for commemoration of the dead, and praying for the dead, are not the same, as the Papists themselves know and confess, 
De purge. lib. 1. cap. 5.  Epiphanius nusquam dicit orari pro sanctis, sed memoriam fieri, saith Bellarmine, Epiphanius never saith, we pray for the dead, but hold a memory of them. And therefore herein Chrysostome is forsaken of all his friends both Papists and Protestants; howbeit the growing of this unlucky twig, from profiting the quick, to profiting the dead; from commemorating at the altar, to praying, offering, and sacrificing at the altar; from thanksgiving to entreating, etc. is here made known unto us, so as now it is become a tree of so great spread, that a number of unclean birds build their nests in the branches of it.    

The Dialogue. Sectio. X.  
TErtullian, 
a This ancien father was a Montanist and a Chiliaste, as it appeareth by this place.  This ancient father, reasoning with a woman (whose husband was dead,) concerning the bond that did still remain between her and her dead husband, concludeth thus, Let her pray for his soul, let her entreat that he may be refreshed 
b What bond? see Rom. 7.2. He puts out and in, and misordereth Tertullians' words.  in the mean time, and that at the resurrection, she may have the fruition of his company; these things if she do not, it may be truly said of her, that she hath forsaken him, infinite are the places which might be alleged to this purpose, but this may suffice to prove that this was the belief and practice of the 
c Jerome saith that Tertullian was not homo ecclesiae a man of the church.  Church in Tertullians' time, who lived near unto the Apostles, that in Epiphanius, Ambrose, Austin, & Chrysostom's 
d All these were of one time and only Chrysostome fathereth this Tradition upon the Apostles.  it was holden for a Tradition left by the Apostles, and generally believed and practised through 
e That which he called the Latin church is here called Universal, etc. Vide Sect. 7.  the universal Church, and that it hath ever since been so believed and practised through the world, until the bore affirmation of Luther that there was no such Tradition left by the Apostles, prevailed more with you, than the authority of all these ancient fathers, and the long continued practice of the universal Church to the contrary.  

The Answer.  
YOur Papist here allegeth Tertullian, and for very shame concealeth the place where this testimony is to be found, if he had but named Tertullians' book de Monogamia, it had been a sufficient preservative against the contagion of this allegation, for Jerome noteth this very book, 
In Catal. Eccle. script.  and the book de exhortatione ad Castitatem, and some other to have been written adversus Ecclesiam, against the Church: and the same father writing against helvidius, would not vouchsafe to answer a place alleged out of Tertullians' book de Monogamia, no otherwise then thus, de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico, quàm Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse, of Tertullian I say no more, but that he was not a man of the Church: so than Tertullian was a paracletical Montanist, and the first father of the Tertullianists, which Austin speaks of in his book of heresies, ad quod vult Deum; Secondly, the book de Monogamia is condemned of the Church; and lastly, this very place hath two plague-sores running of it, as being infected with two capital heresies, 
Tertulide Monogam.  namely the heresy of the Montanists, and the heresy of the Chiliasts; these be the words pro anima eius oret, & refrigerium interim adpostulet ei, & in prima resurrectione, consortium, & offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius, nam haec nisi fecerit, verè repudiavit quantùm in ipsa est, etc. Let her pray for his soul, and desire refreshing for him in the mean time, and his company in the first resurrection, and let her offer yearly on the days of his death, for if he do not these things, she hath as much as lieth in her made divorce. Here we see first, that Tertullian doth not say, oars, but oret, adpostules, but adpostulet, offeras, but offerat, feceris, but fecerit, repudiasti, but repudiavit, quantum in te est, but quantum in ipsa est, whereof it followeth, that he doth not reason with a woman, but speak of a widow woman, reading her a Cataphrygian lecture not to marry again, but to pray for the soul of one husband, to entreat for a refreshing to one husband, to desire company of one husband, to offer yearly for one husband, etc. for being a Montanist he thought it a fowl shame for her to pray thus for many husbands, 
Lib. de exhort. ad Castit.  duplex iste rubor est, a double shame; saith he in another place, nay triplex, and quadruplex, if happily she marry so often, and so pray for the souls of so many husbands: wherefore we see by this little light that praying and offering for the dead, is held by Tertullian, as an appurtenance to Montanisme or the Cataphrygian heresy, and this is yet further strengthened in that Phylastrius saith, the Montanists held baptizing for the dead, which could not be done without prayers.  
Now, touching the other heresy of the Millenaries or Chiliasts, your Papist translateth [in prima resurrectione, in the first resurrection,] [at the resurrection,] leaving out [prima,] as a note of shame; for if there be a first resurrection, it followeth that there is another, call it a second resurrection, or what you will. Now; every body knows that the Chiliasts held two resurrections; one at the next appearing of Christ in the clouds, which blesseth all the godly with all bodily pleasures, meat, drink, venery, etc. Another a thousand years after, when the wicked shall likewise be restored to felicity. 
Apoc. 20.5.6.  If any happen to reply that Saint john, (though he be no Chiliast) speaks of a first resurrection, as well as Tertullian: I answer, that Saint john by first resurrection, meaneth [regeneration] which Paul calleth [a rising again with Christ] and so Beda expoundeth it, 
Colos. 3.1. Beda. in Apoc. 20.  saying, Sicut prima mors in hac vita est per peccata, ita & prima resurrectio in hac vita est per remissionem peccatorum; As the first death is in this life by sins, so the first resurrection is in this life by the forgiveness of sins. But Tertullians' first resurrection, cannot be so understood, unless we imagine [this life] to be after this life, which is impossible.  
This is enough, I trow, and too much for answer to Tertullian, yet another trick of false translation would not be passed over, for where Tertullian saith, refrigerium interim adpostulet ei, & in prima resurrectione consortium, referring the word interim, to the intermedial time before the woman enjoy her husband's company: he translateth it so, that it must needs be referred to the refreshing of his soul before the first resurrection in purgatory or some place of sorrow; which is not to be gathered out of this place, for, refrigerium, doth not import a former grief, but a new blessing. And so this widow woman is not yet willed to pray for relaxation of pain, but that her husband may have a joyful sentence of blessedness in body and soul [in the first resurrection,] at what time she was to expect the fruition of his companion.  
Again, observe how this Popish translator hath utterly omitted these words, [& offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius] whereby light is given us, that all this praying and offering was but a matter of course, and custom continually performed for preservation of the memory of our friends and Christian brethren deceased: as there were annual oblations, 
Tert. de Coron. milit.  pro dormitione, for death or sleeping, so than were also pro natalitijs, for the birth; and as the one was rather an honour to the dead, than an acknowledgement of their misery, so was the other: yet now [oblationes pro natalitijs] are clean taken away, and [oblationes pro dormitione,] or [pro defunctis] still continued, or rather augmented, or to speak more truly, clean changed from the first institution; howbeit I will not deny but Tertullian in time might have some good conceit of purgatory, or hell rather, for he calls it [infernum, 
Lib. de Anima sect. 17. ] but I utterly deny that ever he held any such doctrine before he was a Montanist, or ever knew it, till his Paraclete taught him, in his Apology against the Gentiles, within a lease or two of the end: thus he writes, Ideò representabuntur & corpora quià neque pati quicquam potest anima sola sine stabili materia, id est, carne, & animae non sine carne meruerunt, intra quam omnia egerunt, Therefore shall the bodies also represent, because both the souls offer any thing without stable matter that is the flesh, and the souls have not deserved any thing without the flesh, in which they have done all things. This opinion is not to be liked of, yet Tertullian held it so long as he was a Catholic: and therefore so long as he was a Catholic [Purgatory] would not down with him, nor prayer for the dead; neither if your Papists own consequence be good: And that Tertullian drew this purgatorian conceit, such as it was from Montanus his Paraclete, do but read the last conclusion of his Book de Anima; thus he writes [Quum carcerem illum, quod evangelium demonstrat, inferos intelligimus, & novissimum quadrantem modicum delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum interpretamur: nemo dubitavit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos, salva resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quoque, When we understand by the prison which the Gospel speaketh of hell, & interpret the last farthing, a small sin to be done away by the delaying of the resurrection: no man will doubt that the soul doth pay something in hell, leaving the rest to be fulfilled at the resurrection by the flesh also. Here we find somewhat like purgatory, though I dare not say it is the same, but let it be so if you will. Now, see what followeth in the same place immediately, Hoc Paracletus frequentissimè commendavit, si quis sermones eius ex agnitione charismatum promissorum admiserit, This the Paraclete hath often commended, if a man admit his saying, by acknowledging the promised graces; Where you may learn that doctrine was knocked into Tertullians' head by his familiar, that is, by the Paraclete of Montanus.  
Yea, but why dare you not say, that this prison is Purgatory? do you ask why? Marry the very words make me to stand doubtful, namely, per carnem quoque, by the flesh also; which to my understanding import, that the soul only must not feel smart, but caro quoque, the flesh also, and good reason it should be so: for if nothing can enter into the kingdom of heaven before it be purified, and we know that the modica delicta, small sins, as well as other capital sins, taint the body, as well as the soul; we must needs devise a Purificatorie for the one, as well as a Purgatory for the other, and so hold with Tertullian, that the soul before the resurrection, shall suffer per se, by itself; and after the resurrection per carnem quoque, else all is marred. Robert Bellarmine the new Cardinal saw this place of Tertullian, I dare say for him, yet he passeth it over slightly, & citeth another place for purgatory out of the same book, Ille (id est angelus executionis) te in carcerem mandet infernum, 
Bellar. de purge. lib. 1. cap. 4. & cap. 6.  unde non dimittaris, nisi modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis expenso, He (that is to say, the Angel of execution) shall cast thee into infernal prison, whence thou shalt not come out, till every little sin be paid for by the delay of the resurrection. This place he cities in two several places, and gives us a special note to carry away with us, Nota solum esse manendum in carcere purgatorij ad summum usque ad resurrectionem; But alas good father Robert, the other place mars the fashion of this note, for it adds, salva resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quoque, which giveth us a new note, that both soul and body must likewise suffer in this infernal prison after the resurretion: I doubt when all is come to all, this prison will prove to be hell, not purgatory, yet such a hell as the millinarie heresy dreamt to be temporal, not eternal; wherefore I hope your papist will no more seek the belief and practice of the Church in Tertullian, 
jerom contra Heluid.  who was not of the Church, nor look any more in Tertullians' mouth for his age, telling us that he lived near unto the Apostles, till he can prove his doctrine to be apostolical.  
The names of Epiphanius, Ambrose, Austin, and Chrysostome are repeated here for a show, but you have heard what private conference I had with them, whereunto add that their witness, being single men, cannot justly be accepted for a public record of religion, whereunto Luther of any other servant of God may not oppose himself; they lived in a manner altogether, they could not see over far either before, or behind, or about them, neither is it convenient that we should make an idol of man's authority; a great sort of fathers agree that Elias shall come before the last day, 
Mat. 17.12.  yet I had rather believe Christ that saith, Elias is come already; many of the fathers say, the wicked a thousand years after domes day, 
Lib. 2. cap. 39 & 40.  shallbe saved, yet, by your leave, I had rather say otherwise, Irenaeus held that Christ was near fifty years old when he was put to death, and proved it by the common consent of all the Bishops of Asia that learned it of S. john: yet may we not believe that this was then believed through the universal Church. Tertullian, in his Apology for the Christian Churches of his time, saith that the soul cannot suffer any thing, Sine stabili materia, id est, earn: Yet may we not believe that Christians believed so through the world. The same father saith in the same Apology, that Christians did them publicly pray, Pro mora finis, yet were it hard to say after him, 
Apoc. 22.20.  that the whole Church prayed against the appearing of Christ in the clouds to vanquish death, and to accomplish their redemption. S. john prayed, Come Lord jesus, come quickly, And therefore I dare not say the Church ever prayed, Stay Lord jesus, and come slowly. Howbeit let the Catholic fathers have all the credit & honour that bare men be capable of, we will not stand against it, but to throw down so many kingdoms, so many dukedoms, so many flourishing Commonweals, so many free cities & Churches, as if the bare affirmation of one man did overrule them, it is too much indignity: if Luther's bare affirmation be so mighty in operation, let not your Papist & his companions call any more for miracles to confirm his vocation, but if it be the breath of God's mouth that began in him, & in his time more powerfully to consume Antichrist; then in former ages: them fear, friend Papist, I say, fear the revenging hand of God, who will not suffer his power to be derided.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XI. Purgatory.  
ALl the proofs before alleged, for prayer for the dead, may as well serve for the proof of Purgatory, for such is the relation between the one and the other: as 
a This is but a conceit, look the answer.  they cannot be separated. For why do we pray for the dead? the answer is made by S. Chrysostome, that 
b Some prayed to that end without warrant, and some to other ends etc. as shall appear.  they may attain to rest; that they may find the judge favourable, whereof it followeth that they are in a place where they want rest, & where they have need of refreshing, yet I will allege some few places for the peculiar proof thereof. Saint Austin expounding the place of Saint Paul the third to the Corinth's, if any man shall build upon this foundation etc. saith thus, 
c These places are not Austin's.  many there be, that by misunderstanding this place, do deceive themselves with a false security, believing that if they do build upon the foundation, Christ capital ofences, that those offences may notwithstanding be purged by a transitory fire, and that they may afterwards attain everlasting life: but this interpretation, dearly beloved, is to be corrected, for such men seduce themselves by this flattery, for in that transitory fire, whereof the Apostle speaketh where he saith he shall be safe as it were by fire, not capital offences, but small sins are purged, 
d This Sermon is written, long after Austin's time, by Caesarius Arelatensis, Anno 670.  Sermone de Sanctis 41. If you take exception against the authority of this place, as produced out of a counterfeit work fathered upon him; you shall find in his 16. 
e This is but facing and bracing.  Homily the same doctrine confirmed by the place of Saint Paul before mentioned, and out of the Prophets in such plain manner, as no evasion will serve your turn.  

The Answer.  
PVrgatory hath his death's wound already, yet your Papist hopes to save the life of it by the help of Austin and Ambrose and the Great Gregory, yet none of them will say that prayer for the dead and purgatory are so near of kin, that the proofs of the one may serve for the other, for the Canon of the Mass prayeth for such as do Dormire in somno pacis, Sleep the sleep of peace: I doubt they sleep not over peaceably in purgatory, & if they do, yet I trow, he will confess that Pope Leo, for whose soul they pray so devoutly once a year, sleeps in heaven at more ease; you heard before how Ambrose prayeth for Theodorus, Gratian, and Valentinian, whom he knew to be in heaven, and Pope Innocentius the third, 
Cap. cum Marthae, Homil. 32.  confesseth that we may pray for increase of glory to the Saints of God, and so saith Chrysostome in his Homilies upon Matthew. Again, on the other side the Papists pray for the deliverance of souls out of hell fire, Libera domine animas defunctorum de paenis inferni, 
In Missa de mort. Damas'. in orat. de mort. Lib. 1. cap. 12.  de profundo lacu, de ore Leonis, ne absorbeat eos Tartarus ne cadantin obscurum, etc. Deliver oh Lord the souls of the dead from the pains of hell, from the deep lake, from the mouth of the Lion, that hell swallow them not, that they fall not into darkness: Nay the great Gregory himself prayed for Traian's soul, & delivered it out of hell; and tells us in his Dialogues that Saint Severus his prayers restored a wicked man to life, that had been carried by devils into hell, but if this be too strong for prayer to deal withal, what then can be said of such as pray for instigation of the pains of hell? Austin saith they may be mitigated, 
Encharid. cap. 112. lib. 4. 1. dost. 46.  and Peter Lombard teacheth it out of Austin, now how this mitigation can be purchased otherwise, then by the prayers and suffrages of the living it were hard to define; Saint Macharius, fetched this point of learning out of the dead skull or scalp of an idolater that said thus unto him, Quando pro mortuis offers preces, nos interim aliquid lenimenti sentimus, 
Damasc. in orat. pro mort. In lib. 4. dist. 45. Art. 2. quest. 2.  When thou offerest prayers for the dead, we in the mean while feel some ease or mitigation of pain. And the Angelical doctor of Aquine granteth that the souls of the damned, reap some good by the prayers of the godly, wherefore we see that though we grant prayer for the dead, yet purgatory will require peculiar proofs, before it can be granted.  
Austin's authority is first objected out of a book of Sermons which your Papist himself aforehand confesseth to be counterfeit, yet he allegeth it at large, as though currant and counterfeit were all one: nevertheless look the Sermon through, and you shall find that these words, quia in igne revelabitur, and these, Si cuius opus arserit, detrimentum patietur, If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: and also these, Saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem, Yet he shall be saved as it were by fire, are all meant of the same fire, and that such as build gold and silver and precious stones upon the foundation of Christ, shall pass through it; but without any hurt, Absque ulla violatione, and so come to heaven, Velut aurum purgatum, that is, as gold purified or purged by fire. I doubt your Popish Gentleman will not allow all this for currant in his Divinity Mint, and therefore no reason, we should accept of it for good payment, I could say further that this Author, yielding somewhat to their error against whom he disputeth, doth but correct their interpretation, and draw it a little aside from capital offences to small sins, lest denying all, and yielding to nothing, his exhortation might prove fruitless. Howbeit the true Austin was never resolved that Saint Paul in this place to the Corinth's speaks of purgatory, as appeareth in his Euchiridion a work not counterfeit, 
Cap. 67. &. 97.  Si homo sceleratus propter solam fidem per ignem saluabitur, & sic est accipiendum quod ait beatus Paulus Apostolus, ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, poterit ergo saluare sine operibus fides etc. If a wicked man be saved by faith only, by fire, and so it is to be taken which blessed Paul the Apostle sayeth, but he shallbe saved, yet so as it were by fire, therefore faith is able to save without works. Hear the known Austin makes an if at the matter, and dares not expound S. Paul as the counterfeit Austin doth, of the fire of Purgatory, nay a little after he interprets this fire to be, animi dolour, saying, Cum iste animi dolor urit, si Christus in cord fundamenti locumhabet, id est, ut ei nihil anteponatur, & malit homo qui tali dolore uritur, rebus quas ita diligit carere magis quam Christo, per ignem sit saluus. When this grief of mind doth burn, if Christ have the place of a foundation in the heart, that is to say, if nothing be preferred before him, and the man which is burned with such a grief, had rather want the things which he so loveth than Christ, he is saved by fire.  
Yea but what say you to the place of Austin in his homilies, where the doctrine of purgatory is so confirmed out of Paul to the Corinth's, and out of the Prophets, that you cannot avoid it? Alas, this is but a Popish brag, for this testimony is as very a counterfeit as the other, & touching the place itself, thus lie the words, Qui temporalibus paenis digna gesserunt, de quibus Apostolus dixit, si cuius opus arserit detrimentum patietur, ipse ausē saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem, per flwium igneum, de quo propheticus sermo commemorat, & flwius igneus currebat ante eum, transibunt etc. They which have done things worthy temporal pains, (of whom the Apostle saith: If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he shall be saved, yet so as it were by fire) shall pass through the river of fire, which the words of the Prophet mention: and a river of fire ran before him. You see here that Paul's place is alleged for nothing else but to show that some do things worthy of temporal pains, which we deny not, nay we will grant further that our works shall abide a fiery trial, yet the fire that trieth every man's work, is not a fire by nature, but by metaphor, and if it be metaphorical any where, it must be so chief there, where it is slaked with sic tamen, yet so, & quailed with quasi, as it were.  
Now where this Austin saith further, that these temporallists shall pass through that fiery stream which the Prophet speaketh of, 
Dan. 7.10.  though I might answer that they may so pass, Absque ulla violatione, without any hurt, as hath been seen before, yet look the place in daniel's Prophesy, & you shall soon find, that the Prophet speaks there, not of a fiery flood, that was indeed really, but which he saw in a vision; he saw in the same vision the ancient of days, that is, God himself sit upon a fiery throne in white apparel, & the hair of his head like pure wool: yet I trow, no man will therefore imagine, that God sits in purgatory; or wears apparel, or hath either head or hair; moreover the horned beast that spoke presumptuously against God, and his Saints was slain, and his body was thrown into this fire; I hope, purgatory fire was never made for bodies, but for souls; neither yet for blaspheming tyrants, but for piddling offences of small moment.  
There is another place out of Ezechiel which this pretended Austin drags in, whether the Prophet will or no, 
Cap. 24.  to countenance purgatory, for whereas the holy Ghost evidently compareth the city of jerusalem to an empty pot or kettle, set upon the hot coals of God's wrath, to the intent that her filthiness might be consumed: he will needs outface us that the scripture compareth a sinful soul to this pot, saying, Sermo divinus quodam in loco ellae animam peccatricem comparat, and then cries out amain, Illic sermones otiosi, & cogitationes iniquae, illic multitudo lewm peccatum, illic stannum vel plumbum diversorum subrepentina delictorum consumentur, etc. There idle speeches and wicked thoughts, there the multitude of light sins, there the tin or lead of divers secret sins shall be consumed. Yet the great Gregory tells us, that they cannot be saved by fire which build ferrum, 
Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39  aes, plumbum, iron, brass, lead, upon the foundation, for by these he understandeth peccata maiora, duriora, insolubilia, greater, harder, or pardonable sins; and to say the truth, such were the sins of jerusalem which Ezechiel speaks of, and therefore no meat for purgatory to feed on.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XII.  
SAint Ambrose, This ancient father (expounding the same place of S. Paul) saith thus, he shall be saved, because the 
a He consisteth of body and soul; but both, I trow, belong not to purgatory.  substance whereon he consisteth, shall not perish, as his evil doctrine shall, because an accident is the cause, and therefore the Apostle said, yet as it were by fire: because this salvation is not without punishment, he said not, he shall be saved by fire, as if by 
b I trow, he may escape purgatory by merits.  his merit he should remain unburned, being examined by fire; but when he saith, yet as it were by fire, he showeth that he shall be saved, and yet receive 
c In this world, not in Purgatory.  punishment, that being purged by fire, he may be saved, and not punished with the damned in eternal fire.  

The Answer.  
AMbrose converted S. Austin, and therefore, I trow, they expound S. Paul both alike, and indeed Ambrose here is clear against Purgatory, and must be understood, for aught I yet see, of the fiery trial and afflictions of this life; 
1. Pet. 1.7.  for tell me, what substance doth a false teacher consist of? doth he not consist, as other men do, of body and soul? why then his substance whereof he consisteth, is neither examined nor punished in purgatory fire, which toucheth not the body, but by that same animi dolour, grief of mind, which Austin speaks of: moreover Ambrose here excludes merit, saying, that his merit cannot so save him from burning, but he must needs receive punishment, that he may be saved, which cannot be understood of the pains of Purgatory, for they may be redeemed by the merits of this life, if you will believe counterfeit Austin; 
De Sanctis serm. 41. Hmil. 16.  totis viribus unusquisque laboret, ut minuta peccata possit ita bonis operibus redimire, ut de ipsis nihil videatur remanere, quod ille ignis possit absumere; and again, Illic multitudo lenium peccatorum consumentur, quae hic ab anima separari per eleemosynas & lachrymas compendiosa transactione potuissent, Let every man labour with all his might, that he may redeem his small sins with good works, that there may seem nothing to remain of them, which that fire may consume. There the multitude of light sins shall be consumed, which might easily have been separated from the soul by alms and tears.  
Again, Ambrose apply Paul's words to false teachers, whose evil doctrine shall perish, as he saith, and indeed Paul speaks of the Doctors of Corinth, and of their faults in teaching and therefore if there be a purgatory to be found here, it must be a purgatory for preachers and teachers of evil doctrine, 
Bellarm. de purge. lib. 1. cap 4. Mat. 5.19.  not for every one that commits a small piddling offence, and hath paid all but a few farthings: now where it is said, that there is the same reason of other men's sins, I doubt they teach evil doctrine that say so, and so make them selves thrall to purgatory, for he that breaketh the least commandment, which Papists count but a venial slip, and teacheth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, saith our Saviour, teaching us, that the sin of a teacher and of another ordinary man, even in small things, differ much, and may not be balanced with the same weights, for to break and teach is a greater offence by much, then to break only, and so the one may go to heaven without trouble, when the other must stick in the briars and stand upon his purgation. So then this place of Ambrose, you see, is like a Carpentars' tool called a twibill, which, when a man hews with the one end of it, is ready to peck out his eyes with the other: and this did Bellarmine see well enough, for he cuts off the forepart of Ambroses' testimony, which speaks of substance and merit, and evil doctrine, and allegeth only these last words; Cum Paulus dicit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, ostendit quidem illum saluum futurum, sed poenas ignis passurum, ut per ignem purgatus fiat saluus, & non sicut perfidi aeterno igne in perpetuum torqueatur; When Paul saith, yet so as it were by fire, he showeth indeed that he shall be saved, but shall suffer the pains of fire, that being purged by fire he may be saved, and not tormented perpetually in everlasting fire, as the obstinate, etc. Wherefore I like your popish fellows simplicity a great deal better, who cities Ambrose by whole sale, substance, accident, merit, evil doctrine, and all; for though in so doing, he have less wit than Bellarmine, yet I will bear him witness, he hath more honesty, but to wind up all in a word, if you be desirous to know Ambroses' meaning, I think you may easily pick it out of these words of S. Austin, 
De civit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 13.  Nos etiam in hac quidem mortali vita esse quasdam paenas purgatorias confitemur; We also confess that there are in this mortal life, certain purgatory pains.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XIII.  
GRegorius Magnus, The 
a The truth giveth you no such thing to understand, look the answer.  truth hath said, if any man shall blaspheme the holy Ghost, he shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come: whereby he giveth us to understand, that some sins shall be forgiven in this world; and some in the world to come: for proof whereof, he useth also the place 
b He saith, it may be understood, de igne tribulationis in hac vita.  of Saint Paul before cited by Saint Austin, and Saint Ambrose, to the same effect. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 39  

The Answer.  
POpe Gregory, is here brought in with his great title to fray us, and yet, God wot, he pleads but simply for Purgatory; for touching the place of Saint Paul, thus he writes, Quamuis hoc de igne tribulationis in hac vita nobis adhibitae possit intelligi, tamen si quis hoc de igne futurae purgationis accipiat, etc. Although this may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which we feel in this life, yet if any take it of the purgation of fire to come etc. As if he should say, though I be of opinion, that Paul speaks of the fire of affliction, whereby God examineth his children in this life: yet if any take it otherwise, I will not stand against it; this is but a silly proof: and touching the other place of Saint Matthew, out of which he concludeth, that [some sins are forgiven in this world, and some in the world to come: 
Cap. 12.32. ] his conclusion is clean contrary to all Logic, for no reason will lead us to reason thus, this one sin is not forgiven, Ergo, some sins are forgiven in the world to come; this is a plain Non sequitur, and so saith Bellarmine, 
De purge. lib. 1 cap. 4.  Non sequitur secundum regulas dialecticorum, It followeth not according to the rules of Logic; but will you know now how it followeth? then hearken what the jesuite saith further, Sequitur secundum regulam prudentiae, It followeth according to the rule of wisdom. So you see how it followeth, and how it followeth not, it followeth by the rule of wit, it followeth not by the rules of Logic, belike Wit is a Papist; and Logic a Protestant: but consider (I beseech you) how far this Popish wit would go, if it might he suffered, Dominus ineptissimè loquitur, (saith Bellarmine) si in futuro saeculo nullum peccatum remittitur, The Lord speaketh most foolishly, if no sin be forgiven in the world to come. See how this saucy jesuite thinks it not enough to say, Dominus non loquitur secundum regulam prudentiae, etc. The Lord speaks not according to the rule of wit, which hath some little show of modesty; but Dominus ineptissimè loquitur, etc. The Lord speaks most foolishly, if his jesuitical conceit of remitting sins in another world be not admitted, this is the desperateness of Popish Divinity: but tell me, I beseech you, is not the speech still alike foolish, if no great sins be remitted in the world to come? yes verily, for thus must it be conceived, the great sin against the holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, neither there where great sins are forgiven, that is, in this world; nor there where no great sins are forgiven, that is, in the world to come. Is not this speech (think you) as far from Bellarmine's [regula prudentiae, rule of wit;] as the other? yet is it propounded according to the Popish conceit; for as we think no sin, so they think no great sin, is remitted in seculo futuro, in the world to come. Gregory in this very Dialogue saith, 
Dial. lib. 4. ca 39 Serm. 41.  that peccata maiora, greater sins, be tunciam insolubilia, be impardonable; and counterfeit Austin saith as much in his sermons De Sanctis. Now than whereas the Pope thinks, that our Saviour in Matthew giveth us to understand, that some sins shall be forgiven in the world to come; let him tell us what sins those be, great or small; great sins be tunc iam irremissibile, as he saith himself: and if he mean small sins, then is our saviours speech as far out of square, as if a man should say, This great heap of corn cannot be contained, neither in this bushel, nor in a fleeting dish.  
But why should the speech of Christ be most foolish, if no sin at all be remitted in the world to come? might not our Saviour speak so by exaggeration, that the speech might the better pierce the uncircumcised hearts, and ears of the pharisees? No, saith the jesuite, Exaggeratio non debet esse inepta, qualis est, cum fit partitio & uni membro nihil respondet, An exaggeration ought not to be foolish, as for example; when a partition is made, and nothing agreeth to one of the parts. Is this the folly he talks of? why it is easy to see, that not to remit the sin against the holy Ghost, is answerable alike, both to this world, and the world to come, which be the members of our saviours partition, for that great sin is never remitted, neither in the one, nor the other; 
1. Cor. 13.1. Galat. 1.8. Apoc. 5.3.  yet notwithstanding we have examples of such foolish partitions in the word of God: Paul saith, Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, whereas Angels have no tongues to speak. And in another place, though we or an Angel from heaven speak otherwise, etc. Yet Angels be no Preachers; so likewise the spirit of God saith, No man is able to open, read, or look upon the Book, neither in heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth: yet be there no openers, or readers, or lookers upon Books in heaven, or hell.  
Thus Pope Gregory is answered; 
Cap. 12.32.  yet that you may evidently see how insufficient this place of Matthew is to found Purgatory upon; I will set you down divers sufficient and full answers which take away the force of all Popish collections. And first we may well ask what is meant by this world, and the world to come. For, albeit men commonly take this world, to be the space intermedial between a man's birth and his death, which makes as many worlds, as there be men, or shall be, and every world to have a several beginning and ending, some past, some present, some to come: yet if I should understand it otherwise, for the whole continuance of this world, 
2. Pet. 3.10.  till it be dissolved in the great day of God, and that same new heaven and new earth be made, whereof the world to come shall consist; the case would be clean altered, for then the Papists must not seek for purgatory in the world to come, as they did before, but in this world, where it is impossible to find it, when the blind man in john's gospel saith [since the world began, 
joh. 9.32.  was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was borne blind.] I hope he means not, that such a miracle was never wrought since the day of his birth, but from the creation. 
Mark. 13.19. Math. 24.21.  For so Saint Mark expoundeth Saint Matthew, where he saith, [there shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world. Again, when we read elsewhere in Matthew, 
Math. 13.39.  that [the harvest is the end of the world,] he doth not mean the day of every man's death, but the day of Christ's second coming, 
1. Cor. 15.24.  [for than shall be the end] saith Saint Paul. And then the reapers, that is, the Angels shall gather the tars to the fire, and the wheat to Christ's barn, so shall it be, 
Math. 13.30. Math. 13.40.49.  (saith our Saviour) in the end of the world. Now then as this present world began, when this heaven and this earth were created, and shall continue till they be melted with servant heat: so it is agreeable to reason, and not disagreeable to Divinity, that the world to come should begin, 
2. Pet 3.7. Ibid. vers. 13.  when there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth, as Saint Peter hath fore-prophecied.  
But I will not hold your Papist to such hardmeat: and therefore I answer secondly out of Mark, who expoundeth Saint Matthew thus, 
Mark. 3.29.  Non habet remissionem in aeternum, Hath not remission for ever; or, Reus erit aterni delicti, Guilty of an everlasting sin; or, Aeternae damnationis, Everlasting damnation. Here comes in Bellarmine sweeting, and tells us that Matthew expounds Mark, not Mark Matthew. This is strange, that a text should be expounded before it is written, or the author extant, but why must we take Matthew to be the expositor of Mark? Marry, Quia Mathaeus copiosiùs scripsit, & pluribus verbis utitur, Because Matthew wrote more copiously, and useth more words. So, Glossa ordinaria, and interlinearis, or what other gloss, or brief draft soever, may not be said to expound, unless it be more copious than the text, than which, what can be more dotingly spoken; but go too, saith he any thing else to that purpose? Yes that he doth, for thus he reasoneth, Aut Christus dixit ut haket Mathaeus, vel ut habet Marcus, vel utroque modo; si primum veltertium, habeo intentum, si secundum, tunc Mathaeus exposuit verba Christi, Christ spoke either as Mark hath it, or as Matthew, or both ways; if the first, or the third way, I have my intent; if the second, than Matthew expounded the words of Christ. How like you this reason? Verily, I never heard a worse, for it is incredible that Christ spoke word for word, either as Matthew or Mark have set down, and it is impossible he should speak, utroque modo, both ways together, unless it were by way of exposition thus, Non remittitur, idest, non habet remissionem in aeternum, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro, id est, reus erit aeternae damnationis, He shall not be forgiven, that is to say, hath not forgiveness for ever, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, that is, shallbe guilty of everlasting damnation. But let us grant him his partition, though every part of it be false; yet may you soon see he hath said nothing; for if the first be true, than Mark hath expounded it; if the last, it is so likewise; if the second, than we have our desire, for then the words in Matthew have no more in them, than Mark hath set down; 
1. Cor. 11.23.  otherwise Matthew delivered more than he received of the Lord. Wherefore that he may be taken himself in the snares of his own reason, I will send it him home, as a Proselyte, or convert to dispute against his old Master, and to say to him, Aut Christus dixit ut habet Marcus, vel ut habet Mathaeus, vel utroque modo, si primum vel tertium, habeo intentum, si secundum, tunc Marcus exposuit verba Christi, Christ spoke either as Mark hath it, or as Matthew, or both ways; if the first, or the third, than I have my intent; if the second, then Mark expounded the words of Christ.  
A third answer we fetch out of the usual known manner of the Hebrew tongue, which expoundeth one contrary by negation of the other; and contrariwise, 
Psal. 69.26. Act 1.20. Psa. 69, 29. Psal. 109, 13. Prou. 19.5.9. Esay 34, 10. Mark. 3, 29.  the negative of the one, by affirming the other, as for example, [Let their habitation be void] id est, [Let no man dwell in their Tents.] [Let them be wiped out,] id est, [Let them not be written.] [Let his wickedness be remembered,] idest, [Let it not be done away.] Again, [he shall not escape or be unpunished,] idest, [he shall perish.] It shall not be quenched day nor night.] id est, [It shall smoke for evermore.] And to give one example for all, Mark the Evangelist expoundeth himself after this manner: for when he had said, [shall never have forgiveness,] he addeth for explication, but is under eternal damnation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So then being armed with so many examples in this behalf, and having Saint Mark to be our Captain, and as it were foreman in our quest, we say, that not to be forgiven, neither in this world, nor the world to come, is no more, but to be punished and perish both here and there, to be under eternal damnation, to be out of all hope of future deliverance.  
But what should we labour to answer that, that needs no answer, for we confess, there is a doing away of sins in the world to come; and yet you are never the nearer your Purgatory: for first, as [not to forgive] is as much to say, as [to punish,] so [to forgive] is as much to say, as [not to punish;] in which sense, there is forgiveness in the world to come, as well as in this world. Secondly, Saint Peter saith, 
Act. 3.19.  [Amend you lives and turn, that your sins may be done away when the time of refreshing shall come, etc. that is, at the second coming of Christ to restore all things, where we learn, that our sins are completely forgiven, till death, sin, and hell be fully vanquished, and discharged at the last day.  

De Purg. lib. 2. Cap. 9  Lastly, Bellarmine saith, that Mali habitus in vita contracti, are taken away, per primum actum contrarium animae separatae, that is to say, a habit of ill doing, which grew a long time by many bad actions, 
De Purg. lib. 2. Cap. 2. & 3.  is clean purged in a moment by one good deed; and yet he holds stiffly against Luther, that souls departed can neither mereri, nor demereri; howbeit here we find a taking away or forgiveness of sins in another world, without scorching in purgatory, by the good deeds of souls departed. Now, whether these deeds be merita or demerita, or what other name it will please him to allow them, some of his Popish friends may do well to resolve us.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XIIII.  
THus You 
a speak of more than you have done, or can do.  have I, for proof of this point of Catholic Doctrine, produced against you, all the means that ever were devised to convince an heresy; and on the other side, you are put to all the shifts, that ever heretic devised for defence of Heresy, from the 
b The Doctors have no authority or dominion over our faith.  authority of Doctors, and Fathers, and the continual practice of the universal Church, you must appeal unto Scriptures; from Scriptures 
c We make no such appeal.  to the interpretation; and from the interpretation of 
d We look not to be saved by Ambrose, Aug. and Gregory's faith, but by our own. Abak. Cap. 2.4.  Ambrose, Austin, and Gregory the Great, to the interpretation and devise of your own brain, as unto the supreme and only sufficient judge of all controversies. So that I must either discontinue my suit, or put the matter to compromise, and make yourself sole arbitrator, which if I should do, and could tell how to propound the case unto you in such covert manner, as the Prophet Nathan did to David, I would not doubt but to draw from you the like sentence as David pronounced against himself, as for example; if I should put your own case unto you thus masked, and disguised, in the habit of a case in law, john a Style seized of the Manor of Dale, whereof he and his Ancestors have been quietly possessed time out of mind, hath to show, for proof of his title, a record of the Tower, dated the first of H. 1. whereby it appeareth that the Conqueror gave this Land to one of his Ancestors; to the same effect, he hath also another like record of H. 2. and another of H. 3. john a Noke claimeth an interest in this Land, and allegeth for maintenance of his title thereunto, that, notwithstanding the said possession and records, the Conqueror did give no such Manor unto the Ancestors of john a Style, and that, without a Charter from the Conqueror to be showed to that effect, his interest is never the better. A fair Charter is produced and acknowledged by the Plaintiff, but he desireth, that the true and right interpretation of the words may be taken; the interpretation concerning the true meaning and sense of the words delivered by the reverend judges in a like case, long before this controversy grew, is showed, which overruleth the matter plainly with the Defendant. The Plaintiff replieth, that the judges like men, did err in their opinion, and that himself, and some other, that claim like interest in the land, can give the right interpretation of the words, whereunto he will refer the whole trial of his cause. I pray you either tell me who is like to have best interest to this land, or give me an 
d Ye shall have instances enough, look the answer.  instance where the cases do differ. The Testimonies of Epiphanius, Chrysostome, Austin, & Ambrose, who 
e They affirm it not, but you father it upon them.  affirm that prayer for the dead, was a tradition of the Apostles, are the records of the Tower, the Scriptures the Charter of the Conqueror, the interpretation of the said Doctors of the place of Saint Paul Cor. 3. the opinion of the judges delivered for the explication of the true sense and meaning of the words of the Charter. This case being agreed by our Counsel, let it be moved at the chequer bar, and let my 
f This should have been omitted in common discretion.  Lord chief Baron's opinion therein be a final end of the controversy between us.  

The Answer.  
HEre our popish Divine will needs be a Lawyer; and therefore he puts cases against us: but his devices and producements, are too homely to control a truth, and to settle a man's faith and conscience. We have seen what those Fathers and Doctors say, and we have showed him how unable they are to bear the burden he layeth upon them, and therefore he had need to deal covertly, by masking and disguising, if ever he look to enjoy his Manor of Dale.  
Howbeit, the breake-necke of all, is this, the cases differ, as may be showed by many instances. First, you have not had quiet possession time out of mind; for it was disturbed by Aerius, and so along even to the days of Luther, as Bellarmine confesseth in his Treatise of Purgatory. Secondly the Greek Church was never seized of this manor. Vsque in hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis creditum, 
Lib. 1. cap. 2. De haeres. libr. 8. ca 1.  Even till this day Purgatory is not believed by the Grecians, saith Alphonsus, and so saith Roffensis, in Polidore de inventoribus rerum. Thirdly the conqueror never gave it by charter, but it was taken rather from the paraclete of Mountanus, as I showed before out of Tertullian, and so defended afterward by colour of charter. Fourthly your john a Style hath no sufficient record to show that prayer for the dead, is a Tradition of the Apostles. Fiftly, if that record could be found, and were granted, yet that which he claimeth by Charter from the Conqueror will not follow, 
Lib. de fide et●per. cap. 13. & 16. & ad Dulcit. quaest. 1. Esa. 53.5. Rom. 8.1. Apoc. 14.13 Eccles. 9.6.  as hath been seen already. Sixtly, the Charter which is showed, is not fair, but doubtful, and full of difficulties, so saith Austin, one of your own judges. Seventhly, there is a fairer Charter to the contrary in Esay, Paul, and Saint john, and Solomon saith plainly that the dead have no part in the world of any thing, (whether it be prayer, sacrifice, Alms, or whatsoever else) that is done under the sun, which clearly confoundeth john a Style, and all other jacks that plead for him. Lastly, the doctors may advise, and give counsel, and plead at the bar, but if they presume to sit upon the bench as judges, 
1. Pet. 5.3. 2. cor. 24.  and (Lords over God's heritage) or having dominion over their faith: then are they traitors against the Conqueror.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XV. Transubstantiation.  
NOw followeth Transubstantiation, wherein, because I have 
a You take much upon you but you perform little  taken upon me to allege no proof which may by any gloss or interpretation be wrested into another sense, there is greater difficulty, for what can be devised to be spoken thereof so perspicuously: which by some such shift, may not be avoided; if the fathers say that the body of Christ, after words of consecration, is really present, that is a figurative speech; if they make mention of the unbloody sacrifice, or of the sacrifice of the Altar: that is 
b who makes such an interpretation?  interpreted, the sacrifice of thanksgiving, they could not use the word Transubstantiation, because it was not 
c The fathers had not the wit to devise such a trim word.  devised before the Council of Laterane: let us admit that 
d One will hardly serve for the universal Church.  one of the ancient fathers were risen from the dead, for to unfold what his belief was, and what the universal Church did hold in his time concerning Transubstantiation, what should we 
e Transubstantiation must stand by devices, or else it will soon fall.  devise to demand of him, or what might he devise to say unto us for final determination thereof? if we should ask whether the very body of Christ be present in the sacrament in form of bread, and he should answer, 
f No father answereth so.  yea, this would not serve, but if we should reply thus. How can it be the body of Christ? Shall I not believe mine own eyes, which tell me that it is bread? if this doctor should 
g Theodoret, Chrysostome, Austin, Tertul and Ambrose himself answer so.  answer that the bread is called the body of Christ in a figurative sense, & that in Sacraments, the sign is many times called, by the name of the thing signified, were not this controversy clearly determined on the protestants side? Contrariwise, If this doctor should answer, that God is omnipotent, and therefore able to do what he will, seem it never so contrary to our senses and understanding: that he was able to make heaven and earth of nothing: and to do all the great wonders and miracles of the land of Egypt: were 
h No verily were it not: see the answer.  not the matter as clearly determined on the Papists side? what cavil could you (in this case) imagine or devise eftsoons to call in question what this doctor's opinion should be concerning 
i Transubstantiation will not come without a better pull.  transubstantiation? will you imagine that he hath spoken all this of God's omnipotency, to prove that he is able to make you 
k As though there were nothing held by us, but, calling, naming, signifying, and figuring?  call the sign of the Sacrament by the name of the thing signified, or to make bread to be a figure of Christ's natural body? Pro. When such a doctor shall arise from the dead, and so determine of the matter as you have imagined, I will make you answer, in the mean time you must give me leave with reverence to think that none of the ancient fathers wear so gross and absurd as to be of your opinion in this point: but to admit that such a castle were built in the air as you have imagined, I must then 
l Then do you confess more than other Protestants will.  confess that such a supposed doctor did hold Transubstantiation. Pap. This very question was thus asked, urged, answered, and determined for the Papists, by Saint Ambrose when he was living, and 
m Non sequitur.  therefore you must needs grant that he did hold Transubstantiation, read his book De ijs quae initiantur mysterijs, the Chapter beginneth thus, Quomodo tu dicis mihi, hoc est corpus Christi? aliud video, panem video etc. How sayest thou that this is the body of Christ? I do see it to be another thing, I do see that it is bread, for answer hereof Saint Ambrose doth allege, that God was able to make heaven and earth of nothing, and for the proof of God's omnipotent power, he repeateth all the wonders and miracles of the land of Egypt, as in that Chapter at large appeareth, this was, 
n But no doubt it was not, but if it were his faith, then was it not his opinion.  no doubt, Saint Ambrose his faith in this point, and the belief and practice of the universal Church in his time, for it is not like that so great a doctor did dissent from the Catholic Church in so material a point, neither is it 
o No, for they were both Protestants.  probable that S. Ambrose was a Papist in this opinion, & S. Austin, whom he converted to the Christian faith, a Protestant.  

The Answer.  
IF your Papist were acquainted with such another as the witch of Endor, 
1. Sam. 28.7.  it seems he would cause one ancient father or other to be raised up from the dead to avouch Transubstantiation, his companions depend upon the apparitions of souls, the speeches of dead corpses, & dead skulls & such like strong illusions, as the heathen did upon their oracles, otherwise it would not be so open & clear a matter that Popery is a doctrine of devils, he hath taken upon him to allege such proof as cannot be wrested by any gloss or interpretation into another sense, and therefore being entangled with such a difficulty, he thinks himself hardly able to maintain his credit without help from the dead: yet me thinks a wise man should not measure other men's wits by his own, nor imagine all glosses and interpretations to be in his own head, nevertheless I see here that he can make glosses of words that were never either spoken or written; if the fathers say that the body of Christ is really present; that is a figurative speech: a figurative speech, quoth he? that must needs be a strange figurative speech, that was never spoken, and they be strange fathers, that drive us to shift them of by figures, when they say nothing.  
Again, if the father's mention the unbloody sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the Altar, that is interpreted the sacrifice of thanksgiving, here is a gloss more than needs, for if the fathers should so say, they hurt not our cause: and therefore no reason we should seek for glosses or interpretations to shift them of, 
Euseb. de demonstr. evang. lib. 1. cap. 10:  Sacrificium Altaris, Sacrifice of the Altar, doth no more hurt us, then sacrificium mensae, sacrifice of the table, doth hurt him, and sacrificium incruentum, sacrifice unbloody, hurts him, and not us, for the popish sacrifice wherein blood is really offered by boulefuls, and drunk up by the Priest, if not by the people, can hardly bear the name of an unbloody sacrifice without some charitable gloss or interpretation, if the fathers should call it the unfleshly sacrifice, I think it would do his carnal presence little good, and therefore I cannot see how the term unbloody can greatly further him.  
Yet see how this fond Papist prattles one, as though these terms, Sacrifice, Altar, and unbloody, were equivalent with Transubstantiation, they could not use the word Transubstantiation, because it was not devised before the Council of Lateran: a worthy devise, no doubt, if the body of Christ be made of bakers bread, for Transubstantiation is a turning of one substance into another, but if the bread vanish to nothing, and then the body of Christ come into the void rooms, which the bread leaves behind it, as the Papists hold at this day: then must the word Transubstantiation give place too, as well as the bread, and cessio, or or substitutio, giving place, succession, substituting: or some such new devise or other must succeed it, howbeit the old fathers wanted no words to utter their mind, they were as well able to speak, I trow, as Pope Innocent, and the priests of Lateran.  
But though nothing else be commendable in this Lateran devise, yet may we see by it, that it was devised only for the Latin Church, for [transubstantiatio] is Latin, and such Latin as cannot be handsomely expressed in the Greek tongue, and the last session of the Council of Florence, holden two hundred years after this of Laterane giveth us to understand that the Greek Church never yielded to Transubstantiation & touching the vanishing away of the bread, and substitution; of the body of Christ, me thinks, when I consider of it, I hear old Nakefield tell how he came to a wild colt that lay fast a sleep in the field, and being merrily disposed, cut a round hole in the forehead of it, like prima tonsura clericatus, the first shaving of a clerk; and then blew his horn in the ear of the colt, so as it started up suddenly and plunged out at that hole, and left his kin behind him: even so the Popish priest, finding bread a sleep upon the Altar, blows the horn of consecration in the ear of it, and makes it skip out at some hole or other, and leave his accidents behind it, marry herein our good Catholics go beyond Nakefield, for he would go no further to tell that the colts skin stood still as plump as it did before, though the stuffing was run away, but these men makes us believe, that the body of Christ creeps in at the hole the bread went out, and so fills the vacuity of the room, that the accidents or skin of the bread remains still as well stuffed, as it was before, without corrupting, or shrinking, or any alteration in the world; so as in the Sacrament of their Altar, men shall see round thing: yet nothing is round, a white thing, yet nothing is white, a thick thing; yet nothing is thick; a heavy thing, yet nothing is heavy; a lump of accidents, yet nothing denominated round, white thick, heavy, or any thing else by any one of them all, blame me if these men pass not Wakefield by many degrees, they say that after consecration it is the real body of Christ; yet if you break it, you break not the body of Christ; if you bite it, you bite not the body of Christ; and which is most absurd, you may eat the body of Christ, but you may neither bite, nor crush, nor grind it with your teeth.  
All this may be seen in Peter Lumbards' Sententious distinctions, 
Lib. 4. dist. 12.  Est ibi vera fractio & partitio, saith he, quae fit in pane, id est, in forma panis, unde Apostolus ait, panis quem frangimus, quia forma panis ibi frangitur & in parts dividitur, It is true breaking & parting which is done in the bread, that is to say, in the form of bread, whereupon the Apostle saith, the bread which we break, because the form of bread is there broken and divided in parts. See the impudency of these men, that dare say that is not broken, which Paul saith is broken, nay which say, that is broken which cannot be broken; for to say accidents and shows are broken and eaten with teeth, is too great frowardness; and this did my friend Peter see well enough: and therefore he entreats us not to think much of the matter, 
1. Cor. 10.16.  saying, Ne mireris vel insultes si accidentia videantur frangi, cum ibi sint sine subiecto, Wonder not, nor insult not, if the accidents seem there to be broken, seeing they are there without their subject. Well, we are content to pleasure you in so small a matter; but when you make Saint Paul to say that broken accidents are the communication of the body of Christ; I wish you had been better advised, but howsoever you rid your hands of us, yet Pope Leo the ninth, and Victor his successor, and Pope Nicholas the second, and the rest of their several Counsels gathered together at Vercels, Turon, and Rome almost a hundred years before you were borne, or your Sentences written, will not be so easily shifted of: for Leo and Victor condemned Berengarius, and Pope Nicholas at length compelled him violently to recant under this form of words, Ego Berengarius confiteor panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem Christi esse, & sensualiter, non solum sub sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, & frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, I Berengarius do confess that the bread and wine which are laid upon the Altar, are not only a sacrament, but the very body and blood of Christ, and that they are sensibly handled by the priests, and broken and torn with the teeth of the faithful, not only in sacrament, but in truth. This is a Pope's injunction sitting in his chair, precedent in Council in a matter of faith and doctrine, which is of irrefragable authority in the Popish Church: moreover, being a public confession, it was drawn plainly without guards or welts, and must be understood literally & Grammatically without shifs or sleights, according to the simple purport of the words; wherefore my good friend Peter, when you presume to say thus, Illa Berengarij verba ita distinguenda sunt, ut sensualiter non modo in sacramento, sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus sacerdotum, frangi verò & atteri dentibus verè quidem sed in sacramento tantum: Those words of Berengarius are so to be distinguished that the body of Christ is said sensibly to be handled by the Priests, not only in a sacrament but in truth: but to be broken and torn with teeth, truly indeed, but only in a sacrament. Your gloss sets the text upon the rack, & violenlty draws the members of it a sunder, which are copulatively chained together in the text, tractari, & frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, distinguenda sunt, quoth he; alas every child may see it cannot bear such a distinction, and therefore either suffer your Pope's text to stand still in force, or else set down plainly like honest meaning men, that your Pope and his Council have grossly erred.  
Howbeit the former part of the Pope's words have most need of a gloss, for when he saith, that bread and wine, after consecration, is not only a sacrament, but also the true body and blood of Christ, if he mean the accidents; they can be neither body nor blood, if he mean the substance, that's vanished, 
Lib. 4. dist. 1●.  if he mean substantia mutata in id quod facta est, the substance changed into that which it is made, that is, in carnem & sanguinem Christi: 
Lib. 4: dist. 11.  Into the body and blood of Christ: as Lombard some where seemeth to tell us: then is it not both a sacrament, and the true body and blood of Christ too, but only one of them, namely id quod facta est, that whereinto it is changed, and here you may smell Transubstantiation, though it were not yet devised, but it stunk so, that Lombard himself could hardly abide it, 
Ibid.  for thus he writes, Si quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio, an formalis, an substantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio, If a man ask what manner of conversion it is, whether formal, or substantial, or of some other kind, I am not able to determine it. Which is as much to say as I cannot tell whether the substance of bread be changed into the body of Christ, or no, for grant me this antecedent, substantia panis mutatur, the substance of bread is changed, the conclusion will follow of necessity, ergo, est substantialis mutatio, a substantial change, & so he that tells me that he cannot define whether the change of bread into flesh, and wine into blood be substantial, tells me withal that he cannot define whether the substance of bread and wine, be changed into the body and blood of Christ.  
These be the colours, and shows, and accidents that have bewitched a great part of the world, and these be the glosses and interpretations that have caused men to run mad, and at length to sleep in their own excrements, but if you look into the ages before Berengarius, you shall find such as did write openly against these Popish accidents, and forms without subject, and against all untoward glosses, in defence of the sacramentary heresy, as heretics now call it, without all controlment or contradiction, which is a main evidence to persuade, that these real conversions and transmutations, which be defended so stoutly and peremptorily in Popery, are not Catholic, but heretical. john Scotus a learned man, venerable Beds scholar taught the same doctrine we hold at this day, 
johan. Scotus  almost two hundred years before Berengarius, so did Bertram 
Bertram.  a famous man in his time, as appeareth by his book, De corpore & sanguine Dei, written at the request of Charles the Great, and Doctor Tonstall witnesseth, 
Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar.  that before Transubstantiation was concluded in the Counsel of Lateran, it was lawful for every man freely to think of it as he thought good; and if this evidence be not strong enough to carry away the matter; then would I feign learn, how they dare stand against Pope Gelasius, that tells them plainly, that the substance and nature of bread and wine remaineth still, 
Gelas. contr. Eutych.  Non desinit esse substantia panis & natura vini, There ceaseth not to be the substance of bread and nature of wine. They tell us very demurely, that by virtue of Christ's prayer, 
Luk. 22, 32.  the Pope's faith cannot fail, and that he is to confirm his brethren: yet herein they make Gelasius faith to fail, and utterly refuse to be confirmed by him, yet was it not Gelasius own private opinion, 
De Sacram. li. 4. cap. 4. Dialog. 1, & 2  Ambrose saith of the consecrated bread and wine: Sunt quae erant, & in aliud commutantur, They are the same they were, and are changed into another thing. Theodoret, Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua, manent enim in priori substantia, & figura & forma, The mystical signs after sanctification, do not departed from their own nature, for they remain in their former substance, figure and form. Chrysostome, 
Ad Caesarium. in Math. hom. 15.  Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione, etsi natura panis in illo remanserit, The sanctified bread is worthy the name of the Lords body, although the nature of bread remain in it. Origen, Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei, & per obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum encitur, That meat which is sanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, according to that which is material in it, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draft. And if all these authorities be rejected, ye shall they never be able to avoid the words of our Saviour Christ, who after the ministration of the Sacrament in both kinds, concludeth after this manner, [I say unto you, 
Math. 26, 29. Mark. 14, 25.  I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, till I drink it new in the Kingdom of God,] unless they can make men believe, that blood may be the fruit of a Vine.  
Let us now return to the examination of the ancient Father, which our Papist imagineth to be raised from the dead. What if he should say, saith he, that the very body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in form of bread? Many then, (say I) he should lie, for Chrysostome saith, 
In oper. imper. in Math. hom. 11.  In vasis sanctificatis non est ipsum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis eius continetur, In the sanctified vessels is contained not the very body of Christ, but the mystery of his body. But forasmuch as it is here confessed, that if this Doctor raised from the dead should answer, that the bread is called the body of Christ in a figurative sense, and that in Sacraments the sign is many times called by the name of the thing signified, he doth clearly in so answering, determine the controversy on the Protestants side: what should we labour further, it being too too manifest, that the Fathers do answer so in their Books extant at this day, and that in as plain manner as can be wished. Qui seipsum vitem appellavit, 
Dialog 1. ibid.  saith Theodoret.Ille Symbola & signa quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit, He that called himself the vine, did honour the signs which are seen with the name of his body, and blood. And again, Seruator noster commutavit nomina, & corpori quidem symboli nomen de dit, symbolo verò nomen corporis, Our Saviour changed the names, and gave to the body the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of the body. Chrysostome, 
Ad Caesar. Monach. ad Bonis. Epist. 23. Contr. Adim. cap. 12.  Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione, The sanctified bread is dignified with the name of Christ's body. Austin, Sacramenta plerunque rerum ipsarum nomina accipiunt, Sacraments do often take the names of the things themselves. And again, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, 
Contr. Martion. lib. 4. In 1. Cor. 11. De his qui init. mist. cap. vlt.  hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui, The Lord did not stick to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And again, facinus vel flagitium videtur inbere, figura ergo est praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit, He seemeth to command a heinous or horrible wickedness, therefore it is a figure instructing us to communicate of the passion of the Lord, and pleasantly and profitably to keep in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Tertullian, Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, figura corporis mei, This is my body, that is to say, this is a figure of my body. Ambrose, Quia morte domini liberati sumus, huiusrei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus, Because we are delivered by the death of the Lord, being mindful thereof in eating and drinking, we do signify his flesh and his blood which were offered for us. And again, Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur, After consecration the body of Christ is signified. Such places as these, be so common in the writings of the ancient Fathers, that it is utterly needless to rehearse any more of them. Thus is your Papist prevented, for our cause, you see, is clearly determined. Yet notwithstanding it is pity the poor man's tale should not be heard, if this Doctor (saith he) should answer that God is omnipotent, and able to do what he will, that he was able to make heaven and earth, & to do great wonders and miracles in Egypt, were not the matter clearly determined on the Papists side? No verily were it not, neither would any man ever think so, if he knew the virtue and power of a Sacrament. Pope Leo, speaking of the water in baptism, though it be not transubstantiate, saith thus, Christus dedit aquae, quod dedit matri, 
De Nativit. serm. 4.  virtus enim altissimi, & obumbratio spiritus sancti, quae fecit ut Maria pareret salvatorem, eadem fecit utregeneraret unda credentem, Christ gave that to the water which he gave to his mother, for the power of the most high, and the overshadowing of the holy spirit, which caused Marie to bring forth the Saviour, made the water to regenerate a believer. So Austin, 
Count litter. pet tan. lib. 3. cap. 49.  Nec iam baptizare cessavit Dominus, sed adhuc id agit non ministerio corporis, sed invisibili opere maiestatis, Neither hath the Lord now ceased to baptise, but he doth it still, not by the ministery of his body, but by the invisible work of his majesty. So Chrysostome, Angeli qui adfuerunt (in baptismo) iam inenarrabilis operis modum non possunt enarrare, adfuerunt tantum & viderunt, 
In joh. ho. 24.  nihil tamen operati sunt, sed pater tantum & filius, & spiritus sanctus. The Angels which were present in baptism, were not able to declare the manner of that unspeakable work, only they were present and beheld, but wrought nothing, but the father only, and the Son, and holy spirit. This very power of the most high, and overshadowing of the holy Ghost, this very work of the Majesty of God, is it, and only it, that maketh these outward elements, 
Rom. 4.11. Eph. 4, 15, 16. Ephe. 5, 30.  seals of the righteousness of faith, and effectual signs and means of our regeneration, and growing up into him which is the head, even Christ; so as we be made, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, Immortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens, 
Cypr. de caena domini.  corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed virtutis divinae invisibili efficientia probans adesse praesentiam, A food of immortality is given differing from common meats, retaining the form of a bodily substance, but proving that a divine power is present, by the invisible efficacy of it. You see now, I trow, that God's omnipotency, hath somewhat else to do, than to transubstantiate, bread and wine, and to uphold empty accidents that have no subject.  
And touching the words of Saint Ambrose, which be counted so pregnant for transubstantiation, as we are here willed to read them in his Book, De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs: So you may read them objected by Steph. Gardiner, and Chedsey, and so answered by Peter Martyr, that few Papists or none at all from that day to this ever durst propound them. Ambrose doth not say, that the substance of bread and wine is abolished, for he flatly avoucheth the contrary, when he saith, sunt quae erant, they are the same they were; but that the nature of them is changed; that whereas before they were common creatures and profane by nature; now by consecration, they be holy signs, such as do not only represent, but exhibit the body and blood of Christ to the faithful receiver, and be effectual and powerful instruments, whereby life and immortality is conveyed into us, and this exposition doth Ambrose himself confirm, where he saith, toward the end of the Chapter, that this is a Sacrament of the true flesh of Christ, and that after consecration the body of Christ is signified. Now to make light of so wonderful a change, which passeth the capacity of Angels (as Chrysostome saith) and to make it inferior to the wonders of Egypt, whereof most were done by sorcerers, as well as by Moses, argueth an understanding darkened, with deep ignorance, and too much addicted to Popish devices. I could add that this place of Ambrose, is objected also by Harding, and answered by Bishop jewel, 
Art. 10, diuis. 3.  and that this Book is thought by many wise and learned men to be falsely fathered upon Ambrose, but this that I have said already is sufficient to beat down the fond brags of our Papist, and to show him clearly, that Ambrose is wrested long ago out of Gardiner, Tresham, Chedsey, and Hardings' hands, who were far better able to hold him, than our wandering Papists be at this day; and therefore this is none of those inanswerable proofs he hath taken upon him to allege, and Saint Ambroses' Faith or Opinion in this point, is not yet found to be Papistical.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XVI.  
EPiphanius; This ancient Father, after a large discourse made for the Catholic exposition of divers places of Scripture, perverted by Arius and other Heretics, who turned all things contrary to their own reason, and understanding into Allegories, and figurative speeches, concludeth that a Christian must believe many things beyond the comprehension of human reason, for proof hereof, he showeth that we must believe that man was made according to the Image of God, because it is the word of God, and not to turn it into an allegorical sense, because we cannot comprehend what it is, wherein this similitude doth consist, which is neither in the body, nor in the soul, nor in virtue, nor in baptism. Then he proceedeth unto another like instance, Et quot sunt quae similia sunt saith he, videmus enim quòd accepit salvator in manus suas veluti evangelium habet, quod surrexit in coena & accepit hac & ubi gratias egisset dixit hoc meum est, hoc, & hoc, & videmus quòd non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, non invisibili deitati, non lineamentis membrorum, hoc enim est rotunda figurae, & insensibile quantum ad potentiam, & voluit, per gratiam, dicere, hoc meum est, hoc, & hoc, & nemo non fidem habet sermoni, qui enim non credit esse ipsum verum sicut dixit, is excidit à gratia & salute. 
a this is a very homely translation look the answer.  And how many like examples are there? saith he, for we see that our Saviour did take into his hands, as it is in the Gospel, that he rose up at supper; and when he had given thanks, he said, this is my body, and so forth, and we see that it is not equal, nor like unto a fleshly body, nor unto the invisible deity, neither hath it the lineaments of the members of a body, for that is of a round figure, and impossible to be discerned of us, yet it pleased him to say, through grace; this is my body, and so forth; and there is no man which believeth it not, for who so believeth not that it is he, according as he hath said, is fallen away from grace & salvation. Thus far this ancient Father, who 
b So did many an heretic and schismatic, as well as Epipharius.  lived in Palestine 1200. years ago: out of which words, being considered with the scope of the discourse going before, and following after from the words: Maxima me subijt admiratio, etc. unto these words, & fabula est de caetero ipsa veritas, & omnia allegoricè dicuntur, We may collect divers good Lessons to the purpose in hand; first, that a Catholic man must believe many places of Scripture to be 
c So many be true in a figurative sense, and so is this for one.  true, being taken in the literal sense, although it be above the comprehension of human reason: Secondly, that in the place of Scripture last rehearsed, there is something, beyond the comprehension of man's reason, which notwithstanding must be believed, and not turned into an allegory 
d That is, such a figurative sense, as is allegorical. For Epiphanius here speaks only against allegories, and no other figure.  or figurative sense, which I do ground upon these words, Et quot sunt quae similia sunt? and how many like examples may we find? If I do infer or allege any thing amiss, reprove me: if not, let us proceed, Libro Anacoratus circa medium. Pro. Epiphanius in that place inveigheth against Arius, and Origen, as well for interpreting things literally, which are to be understood figuratively, as he doth for interpreting things figuratively, which are to be understood literally: and therefore if you do interpret these words, [this is my body] literally, whereas it is to be understood figuratively he inveigheth against you, and not against me. Pap. True it is, that Epiphanius doth reprove as well the literal as the figurative interpretation, but who so shall read the discourse with indifferency shall find, that the examples of the blessed Sacrament; and of the similitude between man and the Image of God, are produced and urged only to prove that many places must be understood literally, and not turned into allegories and 
e Epiphanius speaks not here against any other figures, but allogories.  figures, because we cannot comprehend how they can be true in the literal signification; for first he inveigheth against Origen, for interpreting many things, that are spoken in the scriptures concerning paradise, which ought to be understood literally, into an allegorical interpretation, than he produceth those two examples to prove that many things in scripture must be 
f And not turned into allegories, but other figures cannot be avoided, no not in the Sacrament.  believed, although we be not able to comprehend how they can be true, and so returneth to the prosecution of his argument against Origen, concerning his denial of a terrestrial Paradise, and his turning of all things thereof spoken into allegories: but this I refer to the censure of the judicial Reader, and will proceed in that you have not excepted against, to wit, that there is something in the blessed sacrament which we must believe although it be incomprehensible, desiring to learn of you, whether it be a thing incomprehensible, that the bread should be a figure of Christ's body, or what other incomprehensible matter you do find therein? Pro. The invisible operation of the holy Ghost in the Sacrament, is a thing incomprehensible. Pa. You must not so escape, for the thing that this Father noteth to be incomprehensible, is, that whereas our Saviour said, it is his body, which must be 
g It is true, as the truth meant it.  true, because the truth hath spoken it, yet it is not like unto a natural body, but of a round form, etc. Now I will learn of you, if it be not Christ's true body, but a figure and signification thereof, what wonder 
h But it is incomprehensible, how it should be so powerful a figure.  or incomprehensible matter is there, that the Sacrament (being a figure of Christ's body) should nevertheless be of a round form, and not like unto a natural body.  

The Answer.  
ANother ancient Father, is brought to speak for transubstantiation, whether he will or no, and his testimony is so tediously dilated with multitude of words, and false translations, and blind lessons, that it wearieth me to look them over, yet may I not suffer such loquacity to triumph against the truth. Ambrose is raised, as it were from the dead, leading Saint Austin in a string, and carrying the universal Church upon his back, as though his words had never been nor could be answered, and this facing may become a Papist reasonably well, but when he brings in Ephanius with a wrong translation to second the matter, whose testimony hath been often answered, and the edge & point of it turned long ago to the very throat and bowels of transubstantiation: I may truly say of him, as the wise man doth of unadvised prattlers; 
Prou. 29.20. & Cap. 26.12.  namely, that there is more hope of a fool than of him. Epiphanius saith, Et accepit haec, And he took these; speaking plurally of many round cakes, or pieces of bread, which after he calls, hoc, & hoc, this, and this, more distinctlyt: his our translator clean omitteth, and englisheth hoc est meum, hoc, & hoc, this is mine, and this, and this; this is my body, and so forth. Again, hoc est rotundae figurae, & insensibile quantum ad potentiam, this is of a round figure & insensible, he translateth, that is of a round figure, and impossible to be discerned of us. And again, qui non credit esse ipsum verum, he that believeth not that it is true: He translateth thus; who so believeth not that it is he, whereas ipsum verum agreeth grammatically with sermonem immediately before.  
These forgeries be very material, for when Epiphanius saith, hoc meum est, hoc, & hoc, as of three round cakes, whereof every one severally and separately is said to be the body of Christ; verily, we must either admit a new trinity in unity, whereof every one severally is the body of Christ, and yet all three but one body, or else we cannot hold transubstantiation, it will not be so hard a matter to exemplify the mystery of the Trinity, which is beyond all example, if hoc, hoc, & hoc, be a trinity in unity. Secondly, when Epiphanius saith, that the round cake is without sense, and powerless, for so we are taught to translate it by opposition following, in these words, Dominum verò nostrum novimus totum sensum, totum sensitiwm, etc. We know that our Lord is all sense, and all sensitive. We see plainly that it cannot be said of the body of Christ simply and absolutely, unless we imagine the body of Christ to be senseless and powerless. Lastly, when Epiphanius saith, that we must believe the words of Christ to be true, as he spoke them; we may not think that he understood by ipsum verum, very Christ himself, body, blood, and all, as this man translateth in favour of the popish single sacrilegious communion, for that's not sicut dixit, as any man may easily perceive. The Counsel of Trent decreeth thus; 
Sess. 13. cap. 3.  Si quis negaverit totum & integrum Christum, & omnium gratiarum fontem & authorem sub una panis specie sumi, anathema sit. If any man shall deny that whole Christ, and the author and fountain of all graces is contained under the only form of bread, let him be accursed. But I beseech you, tell us by what words this strange consecration is made? hoc est corpus meum, makes but the body that is broken, and blood is not broken, but shed. Again, hic est sanguis meus, makes but the blood that is shed, and the body is not shed, but broken. Verily our Saviour himself when he gave bread, gave his body, and not blood, for that he gave after supper, when he took the cup, 
Luk. 22, 20.  and if he gave integrum Christum, whole Christ, when he gave bread, than he gave nothing, when he gave the cup, and therefore these good fellows had need take heed they involve not the Son of God himself within their, 
1. Cor. 12, 3.  Anathema sit, for no man speaking by the spirit of God calleth jesus execrable. 
In decret pontiff. dist. 2. cap. Comper.  No, no, they that divide this holy mystery be Sacrilegi, saith Pope Gelasius, and so by good consequent this Anathema sit, must return home, and fall upon their own bald pates that made it.  
But to leave these fashoods, and to give you the true meaning of this ancient Father, in a summary Compendium, we must believe that bread in the Lord's supper, is the body of Christ, not simply, but in such a figure as taketh not away the truth of the Scripture, as we also believe man to be after a true understanding, 
Gent. 1.26, 27  the Image of God, for as man is after a sort the Image of God, as the word of God testifieth, though he be not thoroughly so, neither in regard of body, nor soul, nor mind, nor baptism, nor virtuous living, not any other evident and lively similitude we see him to have with God, so do we believe that the bread which is of a round figure, and without sense and feeling, is after a true manner and meaning the body of Christ, as the words of Christ teach us, though it be not so by substance or apparent proportion and portraiture of bodily members. Wherefore though bread by nature be but a profane common element appointed of God to feed our bodies: yet (by grace) it pleaseth the Lord to make it, and to call it his body, that is a Sacrament of his body, whereby, as by an effectual instrument, the faithful receivers are spiritually fed and nourished to eternal life.  
This I take to be Epiphanius meaning, whereunto I will add a few lessons for more perspicuity, and for the overthwarting of those two lessons, which our Papist here giveth us. Frst Epiphanius being learned and industrious, knew well enough wherein the Image of God consisted, 
Ephes. 4, 24. Coloss. 3, 10.  for Paul teacheth it plainly in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Secondly, this Image is so defaced and overshadowed in the posterity of Adam, that nothing in man or about man, seemeth answerable or agreeable unto it. Thirdly, notwithstanding this obscurity, we must believe the truth of God's word, that man is created after the Image of God, and not overthrow that truth by allegorical subtleties. Fourthly, we have the like example in the words of Christ at his last supper; namely, this bread is my body, which Epiphanius knew to be spoken per gratiam, by grace; whereby that common element was advanced supernaturally and mystically; yet truly to have the name of the body of Christ, whereof it was a Sacrament. Fiftly, there is no apparent equality, or likelihood, or outward sensible similitude or proportion of members, why bread should be so called. Lastly, notwithstanding this difficulty, we must believe that by bread, is meant true bread, and by body, the true body of Christ, and that the one is said of the other, figuratively indeed, because they be dispanita, yet truly as our Saviour spoke, and not fly to origenical allegories, which overthrow the historical truth of God's holy word, and turn it into fables.  
These lessons (I trow) be plain enough, yet I doubt our Papist will not think his knot is yet loosed; there is nothing (saith he) in the Sacrament that is incomprehensible, but Epiphanius saith not so, though he say it, neither can it be inferred, out of quot sunt & similia sunt, for the Image of God was comprehensible in Adam, though it be defaced in us, and things may be, Similia secundum magis & minus, but not to multiply quarrels, let us grant that he saith to be true, what then? Marry than I would learn (saith he) if it be not Christ's true body really present, but a figure thereof, what wonder or incomprehensible matter is there, here is a little pretty It, three times repeated in the knitting of this knot, It, is his body, It is not like to a natural body, and if it be not Christ's body, etc. I beseech you what means this man by his It? is [It] something, or is [It] nothing, or what is [It?] Epiphanius saith, It, is of a round form: therefore It, is not accidens, for rotundum is not accidens, but rotunditas; if It be a substance, than It must be either the body of Christ, and so the body of Christ is of a round form, or else it must be bread, and so indeed all the three Evangelists are bold to call It, 
Math. 26, 26. Mark. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19 1. Cor. 10, 16.17. 1. Cor. 11, 23, 26, 27, 28.  and so is the Apostle Paul twice in one Chapter, and four times in another, and he himself for all this mincing of the matter, comes down in the end out of the clouds, and confesseth the Sacrament to be of a round form, whereof it followeth, that it is neither an accident, nor the real substance of Christ's body, but bread as the Scripture calls it. Now, for the unloosing of his knot, I say, that it is incomprehensible, how a round piece of bread should be such a figure, as is worthy to be called the body of Christ, and so to exhibit and convey the graces and merits of Christ's passion into us, that our sins are remitted, our faith increased, and we incorporate, and made members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Let him show me, that this is not far beyond the comprehension of man's reason, and I will give him his ask.  
But for a full cleared of Epiphanius, it is to be remembered that Manes and his disciples, living upon the sweat of other men's brows, and supposing all things to have life & soul, as man had, were wont to consecrate the bread and wine, that was given them to fill their slow bellies withal, after this sort, Ego non seminavite, non messui te, non molui, in clibanum non misi, alius obtulit & comedi, innoxius sum, etc. I sowed thee not, I reap thee not, I ground thee not, I baked thee not, another offered it, and I did eat, I am innocent, etc. Whereunto Epiphanius answereth, ipsi non recidunt botrun, sed edunt botrun, 
Haeres. 66. circa medium.  utrum gravius est? etenim vindemians semel recidit botrun, qui vero comedit, per dentes sectores ac manducatores singula grana edomat, & per hoc magis multipliciter torquet ac secat, & non amplius similis erit, ei qui semel secuit, is qui manducavit & consumpsit, They cut not the bunch of grapes, but they eat it, which is greater? the Grape-gatherer did once cut the vine, but he that eateth it doth cut and grind with his teeth all the graces, and in the respect he doth torment it much more, and he that hath eaten and consumed it, is no longer like to him that only once cut it. You hear what Epiphanius saith for confutation of the manichees. Now consider how that he saith can possibly be good, if the living sensitive body of Christ, blood, and all be eaten of the Catholics; might not the manichees than reply, that they were more to be borne withal, that were compelled by hunger and thirst to eat and drink living things of mean regard, crying for grief, Ego non seminavi te; non messui, non molui, etc., Than Epiphanius and his Catholics that presumed to eat the living flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood? verily Epiphanius being learned & wise, would not have left his reason in this case wide open without either fence or shelter against the adversary, if the real presence and manducation of the body and blood of Christ, had been catholickely believed in his time. Peter in the Acts, when a voice from heaven commanded him to kill and eat, though he were hungry, and in a trance, yet he forgot not the law of God, but answered, [God forbidden Lord, for nothing polluted, or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth,] and shall we think, that the same Peter, when our Saviour saith [take, 
Act. 10, 10. etc. Et cap. 11 5, etc.  eat, this is my body,] and [take, drink, this is my blood:] would never make any question, neither he, nor any of his fellow Apostles, against the eating of man's flesh, and drinking man's blood, if they had understood the words of Christ after the popish fashion? Even so, he that thinketh that Epiphanius, holding the real eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ; would dispute, so loosely as he doth, against the manichees: must needs think withal that his wits were in a deeper trance than Saint Peter, and so fit to gather wool, than to confute heretics.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XVII.  
I Will leave this knot for you to unloose at better leisure, and assay you with another argument to prove the 
a This will you never prove while you live, nor your child after you.  consent of all ancient Fathers, and the uniform practice of the universal Church in this doctrine of transubstantiation: but first, I will set down certain places out of the Fathers whereon to ground mine argument, although I have already used the same places for the proof of prayer for the dead. This Custom saith 
b These places are answered all of them.  Saint Austin, the universal Church doth observe (being delivered by tradition from the Elders,) that whereas at the time of the Sacrifices, commemoration is made of all souls departed in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, they should be prayed for, and that the sacrifice also should be offered for them, De verb. Apost. Sermone 32. You shall also find, that there was a Sacrifice offered for the quick and dead, in Saint Ambrose his first prayer Praeparans ad missam, and in Tertullians' Book de Monogamia about the midst of the Book, the place beginneth, dic mihi soror in pace, etc. Hereby it is manifest, that 
c How many ages were they, I pray you?  in all these ages, the Church did 
d That is to say, Signum & repraesentationem sacrificij, Aug. de civit. dei lib. 10. cap. 15  offer a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, which being agreed upon between us, I desire to know of you, whether that sacrifice which was offered, was the sacrifice of the Mass (which implieth transubstantiation,) the sacrifice of the Protestats communion, the sacrifice of prayer, or the sacrifice of thanksgiving? for if it was none of the three last, it must needs be the sacrifice of the Mass, and so is transubstantiation proved. Pro. 
e And why not the Protestants communion?  It might be either prayer, or thanksgiving, for both are often times in the Scriptures called by the name of a Sacrifice. Pap. Thus do I prove, that it was neither: and first, that it was not prayer, it is manifest by the place of S. Austin before cited, De verb. Apost. Serm. 32. where he maketh mention of the prayers, that the Church made for the dead, and of the Sacrifice which it used to offer for them, as of two distinct things, for there he saith that at the time of the Sacrifice, prayers were made for the dead, & that the sacrifice was also offered for them, That it was not the Sacrifice of thanksgiving, it appeareth likewise by the same Doctor, by the place by me above cited out of his Enchiridion, where he saith, Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relovari, cum pro eis sacrificium redemptoris offertur, etc. Neither must we deny that the souls of the dead are relieved by the charity of their living friends, when as the sacrifice of our Redeemer is offered for them: the sacrifice therefore, which the Church did offer, was the sacrifice of our redeemer, and it was offered that the dead might be relieved, how can you call the sacrifice of thanksgiving the sacrifice of our redeemer? or how can you say, that the church did offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, that the souls of the dead might be relieved? for thanksgiving is for benefits received, and not for benefits to be received: it remaineth therefore, that this sacrifice of the church was 
f This is a worthy disputer, that concludes for our communion, as well as his own Mass.  either the Protestants communion, or else that it was the sacrifice of the Mass, and consequently that the body of Christ is really in the Sacrament.  

The Answer.  
THe knot he talks of, was so loosely tied, that it was no mastery to undo it, but now we shall have such an argument as shall prove unto us the consent of all ancient Fathers, and the uniform practice of the universal Church for transubstantiation, these be great words; yet notwithstanding, when he grounds this doughty argument upon Austin, Ambrose, and Tertullian, concluding thereof, that in all these ages the church did offer a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, I can take them for no better than the words of a man beside himself; he knew well enough, that Ambrose and Austin were both of an age, for he hath told us once or twice, that the one converted the other, and if he knew not that the annual offerings of a widow woman upon the day of her husband's death, enjoined her by Tertullian in these words, Et offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius, was not the sacrifice of the Mass, I must needs think his head was out of temper, if these three Fathers had written in three several ages, it had been the least number that the word [all] could be spoken of, 
Aristot. de caelo lib. 1. cap. 1.  for we call two [both,] and not all, and therefore by what wit or common sense, he could say all these ages of one age, or two at the most, if Tertullian had not been mistaken, I cannot possibly imagine; but for answer to these Fathers, 
Contr. Collyr. haeres. 79.  Epiphanius saith truly, Deo abaeterno nullatenus mulier sacrificavit, A woman did never in any case offer any sacrifice to God: And again, Nusquam mulier sacrificavit, aut sacerdotio functa est, A woman never sacrificed, nor exercised the priestly office. 
Dialog. cum Tryphon.  Whereunto add out of justine Martyr, that God receiveth no sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but only of his Priests, whereof it followeth, that the annual oblation that Tertullian speaks of, was no sacrifice, unless you will say, 
Epiph. haeres. 49.  that Tertullian was a Priscillianist or Artotyrite, that allowed of Roman Priests and women Bishops to offer bread and cheese in Sacrifice to the Lord.  
And touching Ambrose, I showed before, that he offered not the very body of Christ, which is received of merit, not of mercy, how irreverently soever it be handled, but celebrated the communion of the body and blood of Christ, joined with prayer and thanksgiving; so now Austin is left alone, of whom I may say, as our Papist taught me a while ago; namely, that it is not probable, that Saint Ambrose was a Protestant in this opinion, and Saint Austin (whom he converted to the Christian faith) a Papist; howbeit, you shall be further instructed out of Lombard, 
Lib. 4. dist. 12  that the ancient Fathers do not use the word Sacrifice, and immolation in proper sense, these be his words, Vocatur sacrificium & oblatio, quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificij, & sanctae oblationis factae in Ara crucis, It is called a sacrifice and an offering, because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy offering made upon the altar of the cross. And a little after, Quotidié immolatur in sacramento, 
Hierar. cap. 3.  quia in Sacramento recordatio, fit illius quod factum est semel, We sacrifice daily in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once done, or of that Sacrifice which was once made. Dyenis, in his Hierarchy, calleth it, 
De demonst. si. 1. cap. 10. Ad Hebr. hom. 17. De civit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a figurative sacrifice, and Eusebius, memoriam magni sacrificij, a remembrance of the great sacrifice, and Chrysostome, recordationem sacrificij, a remembrance of the sacrifice, and Austin himself, signum & representationem sacrificij, a sign of representation of the sacrifice: wherefore we can agree with your papist no farther in this point, than to confess that the ancient fathers, called the sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ improperly [a sacrifice] because it is a memorial and representation of that one all sufficient, uniterable, everlasting sacrifice, which our Saviour, the last true Priest that ever lived or shall live upon the earth, offered to God upon the Altar of the cross, and so the ground, whereupon this popish argument is builded, is sandy and deceitful.  
Now let me show you that prayers, and supplications, and praise, and thanksgiving are the only true sacrifices of the new testament, and that the ancient Christians of the Primitive Church never knew or hard of any other; to this purpose therefore you must remember that God receiveth no sacrifice but at the hands of a Priest, for so we learned a little before out of Austin Martyr, [Priests] we read of none specially so called in God's holy word, but either Levitical, or after the order of Melchizedech, 
Heb. 7.12.18.  whereof the one gave place to Christ, the other hath place in Christ, and in Christ only, for this priesthood is said to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Heb. 7.24.  that is, such as passeth not from one to an other successively, as did the Priesthood of Aaron, and this is yet further strengthened in that the ministers of Christ having so great variety of names in the new Testament to show what their office is, and what they have to do in Christ's Church, are no where named [priests] which the holy Ghost, that knew best how to give fit names, would never have done, if Christ had ever instituted such a kingly priesthood to succeed him, wherefore the Priesthood of Melchisedech figuring only the ever-standing, & never-passing priesthood of Christ, for no other Priesthood can possibly be answerable to the pattern of Melchisedechs' priesthood) it must follow that such as challenge to be Priests after Melchisedechs' order, are sacrilegious traitors against Christ, and lay violent hands against his royal prerogatives.  
Neither is this doctrine preiudicall to the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, which needeth no erection of a special priesthood, for as it is a common duty, so we are all in general a holy and a kingly priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through jesus Christ, 
1. Pet. 2.5.9. & Revel. 1.6.  and to show forth the praises of him that called us out of darkness into his marvelous light; so than the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving may every Christian offer in private by himself, and publicly by the mouth of God's minister, other sacrifice the old fathers knew none; justine Martyr saith, 
In dial. cum Triphone.  that supplications and giving of thanks, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for these only Christians have learned to offer, where the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be observed, 
Vide Bez. Annot. in Math. 1.20.  which teacheth us, that these Christians of these times had received this only kind of sacrificing, and no other, of the fathers and teachers that were before them. 
Ad Scapulam.  Again, Tertullian saith, Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris, sed Deo nostro & ipsius, sed quomodo praecepit deus pura prece, The dead must be prayed for, when they are remembered at the sacrifice in their order, and it must be declared that it is offered also for them. In which words after he had said generally, we sacrifice for the health of the Emperor: he than restrains this sacrifice, first to the true God, and then secondly to the Christian manner of sacrificing in pure prayer, as the true God had commanded, teaching us that God never gave commandment to offer any other sacrifice unto him; and if he had, no doubt but the Christians of Carthage and other places in Africa would have offered most readily and willingly for the safety of the Emperor.  
These two fathers, both in regard of their great antiquity & plainness of their testimony, are of sufficient force to show that the first Churches never knew what the Popist sacrifice of the Mass meant, yea but will you say likewise that they knew not the sacrifice of the Alms, for these two testimonies are as full against the one as the other; not so, by your leave, 
Dulcit. questio. 2. & Enchir. cap. 209. Phil. 4.18. Mat. 9.13. & 12. epist. 6.6.  for Alms is contained under gratiarum actio, and Austin saith it is gratiarum actio pro valde bonis, and propitiatio too pro non valde malis. Howbeit Alms, though Saint Paul call it a sacrifice, yet needeth it no special priesthood to offer it, neither is it an immediate service of God, as prayer is, but mediately pleaseth him as a work of the second table, and therefore our Saviour saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, and so said the Prophet Osea long before, opposing sacrifice to the exercise of mercy. Now comes in our Papist crying, thus do I prove that the sacrifice, spoken of in the fathers, was neither prayer nor thankesging, and therefore justine Martyr and Tertullian had need to look to themselves; well let us hear these worthy proofs, and consider of them, whether they be strong enough to outface two fathers of so great antiquity; Austin, saith he, maketh mention of the prayers and sacrifices of the Church, 
Lib. 10. cap. 15  as of two difficult things, ergo, it was not prayer, No, nor sacrifice neither, by your leave, but a representation of the sacrifice of Christ; for that's Austin's meaning, as himself tells you in his book De civitate Dei, and so is the other argument to be answered, where your papist tells us out of Austin, that the dead are relieved by the sacrifice of our redeemer, whereas thanksgiving can neither be so called, nor yet relieve souls, because we give thanks for benefits received, not for benefits to be received. For Austin knew well enough that, to speak precisely, there was no sacrifice of our redeemer in his time, nor any time else after the death of Christ, 
Dyonisius, Eusebiu● Chrysostome, etc.  but that which himself calls signum & representationem sacrificij, a sign and representation of the sacrifice: and other fathers, a token, a memorial, a recordation of the sacrifice of Christ: now whether this recording the Lords death till he come, 
2, Cor. 11.26.  do relieve the souls of the dead, it hath been already disputed.  
But to grant him more than either may be granted; or he can possibly evince, namely, that it is indeed a sacrifice, as it is called, yet may it be said, that it is so, and is called so, not absolutely in itself, as it consisteth of dumb and deaf elements; but in regard of prayer and thanksgiving, which be inseparably annexed unto it, otherwise it is not like that Austin would say, that the sacrifice of the Altar, for those that be valde boni, 
Enchir. ca 109. & Dulcit. quaest. 2.  is thanksgiving: now if this sacrifice pro valde bonis be thanksgiving, as Austin faith it is, why may it not be said likewise that the same, sacrifice pro non valde malis, is prayer? I am sure Austin saith it is propitiatio, which includeth prayer: and here again consider how weakly he disputeth, when he saith that thanksgiving which is for benefits received, 
August. ibid.  not for benefits to be received, cannot relieve souls etc. For, though it may be said, that God rewardeth a thankful remembrance of benefits received, with new blessings: yet Austin writes not any where that the use of the sacrifice is always to relieve, but sometime to give thanks, in which regard it is called the Eucharist; but for as much as justine Martyr, and Tertullian testify, that the Christians in their time did sacrifice not only by thanksgiving, which is for benefits received; but also by prayer, which is for benefits to be received, the edge of this wise dispute is utterly blunted.  
To go yet a little further, if it should be granted him that this sacrament is a sacrifice absolutely in itself, yet I hope it cannot relieve souls, nor do any such feat by itself, as it consisteth of dead elements, unless prayers and supplications, and giving of thanks be annexed unto it, for he that neither prayeth, nor giveth thanks, be he priest, or king, Aaron or Melchisedecke, cannot be said to offer this sacrifice: and relieve souls it cannot, unless it be offered. Now then see the unskilfulness of this prating disputer, who teareth into pieces things that be inseparably knit together, and so in this foolish fit, desireth to know whether this sacrify was the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of the Protestants communion, the sacrifice of prayer, or the sacrifice of thanksgiving; let him show me that either his Mass, or our communion is said or sung without prayer and thanksgiving, or else let him hold his peace till he have learned to dispute better. Augustine distinguisheth his sacrifice from prayer and thanksgiving, but he doth not separate them, and so his meaning must needs be that our prayers and supplications are profitable at all times, but specially then, when the Communion of the body and blood of Christ is ministered, and our souls inflamed thereby, and stirred up to greater devotion, 
In Philip hom. 3.  and hereunto Chrysostome accordeth, saying, Stante universo populo, manus in caelos extendente, caetuitem sacerdotali, verendoque posito sacrificie: quomodò deum non placaremus pro istis orantes? The whole people standing, and lifting up their hands to heaven, as also that company of the Priests, and the reverend sacrifice laid before, how should we not appease God when we pray for them?  
This is sufficient to show that the pricking arguments you speak of, draw no blood, and that they may be answered, sine sanguine & sudore; yet a knack or two of Popish knavery is here to be discovered, that you may the better see the sleights of these companions, for when he foresaw out answer to Austin like to be as I have set it down: he thought it his best way to falsify Austin's testimony after this pretty fashion; Austin saith, that at the time of the sacrifice, prayers were made for the dead, and that the sacrifice was also offered for them, but doth Austin say that the sacrifice was offered, at the time of the sacrifice? is it credible that Austin spoke so foolishly? no, friend Papist, Austin's words are these, pro defunctis, cum ad ipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur, The dead must be prayed for, when they are remembered at the sacrifice in their order, and must be declared that it is offered also for them. That is, when the dead are mentioned in their order at the time of the sacrifice, let them be prayed for, and (that the people may be stirred up to pray the more devoutly) let it be told them also, that the same sacrifice is offered for them, and for the better explication of his meaning: Austin presently after in the same place (as Chrysostome in the place before alleged) mentioneth prayer, and not the sacrifice, saying, Orationes Deo non inaniter allegantur, Prayers are not directed in vain to God, whereby inclusive such prayers are to be understood as were sharpened and set on edge by the celebration of the sacrament.  
Again observe how your Papist lets slip the Protestants communion through his fingers, and concludes no more but thus, therefore this sacrifice of the Church was either the Protestants communion, or else the sacrifice of the Mass; well, but is this all he purposed to prove with his sprinkling arguments? if this be all, our controversy will soon be at an end; and yet he never the nearer his transubstantiation. no, no, this is not the daisy which he skipped at; he must prove that the sacrifice of the Church, which the ancient fathers speak of, was the sacrifice of the mass, and no other, and that shall he never be able to do till he have removed the Protestants Communion, as well as prayer and thanksgiving, out of his way. This he could not but know if he had any wit in his head, & therefore what can be said else to this, but that the Protestants Communion was too to hot for him han-dle, and that all the wit and learning he had, was not able to outface it.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XVIII.  
PRo. I may say unto you here as the Auditor in Tusculans questions said unto Marcus, Spinosiota haec prius ut confitear me cogunt, quàm ut assentiar, your pricking arguments do rather compel me to grant, than persuade me to consent; for although by my silence, I may seem to grant (as not being able to unloose your Gordions knots) yet am I so far from consent, as I was at the beginning of this conference, which bringeth to my remembrance a merry tale I have heard of a scholar of Oxford, who having attained some pretty skill in Sophistry, would needs take upon him to prove unto his father by the rules of Logic, that two chickings which were set upon the board in a dish, were three; the father, although he could not unfold his sons arguments, yet was he so far from being persuaded by them, as I am now from being persuaded by yours: and for an infallible demonstration that he could not be deceived in his opinion, he took unto himself the two chickens, leaving the third (which lay 
a As the body of Christ doth in the pix, for foolish Papists to feed one.  invisibly in the empty dish) for the Logician to feed upon: even so although you have proved your assertions by such arguments as I am 
b It is not so hard a matter to do.  not able to answer, and proved the same by the testimony of such reverend witnesses, as I cannot except against: yet cannot I believe the same, because all my senses together with infinite absurdities, and impossibilities that would follow thereon, do infallibly demonstrate the contrary, do not all our senses tell us, that Christ's natural body is not in the sacrament? doth not our reason and understandin teach us that a natural body cannot be in infinite places at the same instant? and that it is impossible the sacrament, being divided into a 
c This is a greater mystery than the mystery of the Trinity.  million of parts, that every of these parts should be the entire body of Christ? & yet that all these bodies, are but one & the same body? can all the arguments and reasons, by you produced and urged, be more forcible to persuade me to be of your opinion, than these demonstrations to the contrary?  
Pa. It fareth with you in this business, much like as with a man that hath lost his way, who the more he bestirreth himself, the further he is from the end of his journey, your heresy hath been pursued and chased through all the doubles & windings which it can possibly imagine, and is now retired (like a crafty fox) into the burrow where it was first littered & bred, which is the judgement and censure of human reason, whereunto (as unto a supreme judge) it doth now appeal from the authority of 
c Non potest per ullam Scripturam probari. Roffensis contra captivit: Babiloni: i. It cannot be proved by any scripture.  scriptures, fathers, and Counsels, and surely this is the very fountain and seminary of all atheism & heresy: for if I should labour to instruct an Infidel in the principal points of christian religion, as the resurrection of the very same bodies after they be consumed to dust & ashes, that the Father is God, the Son God, and the holy Ghost God, and yet that they three are but one God, without confounding of the persons, that the Son is eternal, and yet begotten of his father, that 
d I marvel how this can he showed to be a principal point of christian religion.  Christ came in unto his disciples (the 
e Are the Protestants heretics for so interpreting? what if he came in at the window or chimney, or lover hole? Non dicitur quod intravit per ianuas clausas, etc. vide Durand: lib. 4. dist. 44. q. 6. 1. It is not said that he entered by the door being shut.  doors being shut) not as the Protestants interpret, the doors opening unto him, but after a miraculous and supernatural manner, as S. Austin expoundeth it, Tractatu 121. evangelii S. johannis, all which is as contrary to the capacity of human reason, as the real presence in the sacrament: if the Infidel in this case should appeal unto the same judges, might he not with the same reason, and by the judgement of the same arbitrators, as well reject these and many like articles of our christian faith, as you do the real presence, if the imperfection of man's understanding be such in the comprehension of the works of nature, that (as 
f We must needs yield, if such authors speak against us. So is not God's word, 2. Tim. 3.16. & Psa. 119.105  Socrates saith) Hoc solum scimus, quod nihil scimus, this one thing we do know, that we do know nothing, how great is the imperfection thereof in the comprehension of things supernatural, being so far remote from our senses and understanding? the wisdom of man (as S. Paul saith) is foolishness with God, and therefore a far incompetent judge is it to determine of things appertaining to God: from this fountain sprang first the heresy of Arius, who, not being able to comprehend how the Son of God could be begotten, when as there was no time of his begetting, chose rather to rend himself from the unity of 
g That's not the popish church. Belike the catholic church can understand things that be above understanding without the scriptures help.  the catholic Church, and to wrest the Scriptures to his own capacity, than to submit his own understanding (in things above understanding) unto the censure of the Catholic Church, the sure rock and pillar of truth; and whosoever he be, that (in matters of his faith) consulteth with flesh and blood, measuring the same by rule of human reason, must needs be an heretic, if not an atheist; if you demand how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament, I answer, I 
h No, nor any man else living.  cannot tell, because it is ineffable, neither can I conceive it, because it is incomprehensible; if you do allege impossibility, I answer that 
i So answered Praxeas the heretic, vide Tertul.  nothing is to God impossible; if you require arguments of credibility, you have as many and as great as for any one article of our christian faith, you have the uniform consent of the 
k I pray you where doth S. john say, hoc est corpus meum, or what other plain and direct words hath he, or any of the greek churches?  four Evangelists in direct and plain words, you have the uniform consent & practise of the ˡ Greek churches continued and remaining at this day, so that there is nothing wanting but the assistance of God's holy spirit, which you are to seek and crave be continual and hearty prayer.  

The Answer.  
Our Protestant here is worse afraid than hurt, the big looks of his adversary made him afraid, but his withered arms could not hurt him; he telleth us with full mouth, and face enough, that he will prove the sacrifice of the mass which implieth transubstantiation, by the consent of all ancient fathers, and the uniform practice of the universal Church, but when all is come to all, he runs away, and leaves this withered conclusion behind him, ergo, the sacrifice of the Church was either the mass, or the Protestants communion, I trow, such arguments as these may soon be answered: but now that our Protestant calleth forth sense and reason to witness against him, and to demonstrate infallibly that his assertion is not to be believed; he comes back again, and entreats him to shut his eyes, and suffer himself to be hudwinked, and then he will take pains to lead him into a popish ditch. If we rely upon the censure of our senses and reason, saith he, we are in the high way to all Atheism and heresy: 
john 20.27: 29.  a strange thing that that which was a mean to faith in Christ's time, should now become a fountain of heresy: our Saviour saith to Thomas, because thou hast seen, thou believest: and again, put thy finger here, and see my hands, and put forth thy hand, put it into my side, and be not faithless, but believe: and in another place he saith, 
Luke 24.38.  why are ye troubled? and wherefore do doubts arise in your hearts? behold my hands and my feet, for it is I myself, handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. Now I beseech you tell me, if the consecrated bread had a mouth to speak, as it hath an invisible mouth, if Papists may be believed, and should say to us, why are ye troubled? and wherefore do doubts arise in your hearts? behold my form and colour, handle, taste, and see, for the body of Christ is not round, white, sweet, heavy, thick, gross, earthy, as you taste, feel, and see me to be. Shall we answer that this is the fountain of heresy and Atheism? No, by your leave, answer so who will, and who dare, this shall be my warrant to settle my conscience, and without further trouble of mind, or doubt of heart, to believe that it is very bread, and not the body of Christ. Moreover the holy Apostle S. john assureth us of the certainty of his doctrine by the infallibleness of the outward senses, 
1. john 1.1.  saying, that which we have heard, which we have seen with these our eyes, which we have looked upon, & these hands have handled of that word of life, that I say, which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, not that you may be Heretics and Atheists, but that you may have fellowship with us, and that our fellowship may be with the father, and with his son jesus Christ.  
Now touching human reason, I would gladly know whether our Papist have framed his arguments with it, or without it? if with it; let him take heed he be not an Heretic or an Atheist: if without it; I doubt, he shall hardly move either Heretic or Catholic to be of his opinion: much less convert Infidels. It were strange doctrine to teach men never to use the help of human reason, because Saint Paul saith, 
Rom. 1, 19  the wisdom of this world if foolishness, for though the mystery of our redemption in Christ jesus, be far beyond the reach of man's wisdom: yet the same Paul saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you may be known concerning God, is engraffed in the heart of man, whereby Gods eternal power and Godhead shining in his works is known unto him, and Peter Lombard, 
Lib. 3, dist. 24.  his own Prophet saith, Quaedan fide creduntur, quae intelliguntur naturali ratione, Somethings are believed by faith, which are understood by natural reason. But to make short work, Paul saith indeed, that the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, and God forbidden we should deny it, but yet the same Apostle presently after saith, 
1. Cor. 2.14. etc.  again the spiritual man discerneth all things; now let him show us that papists are spiritual men, and Protestants natural men, and then we will veil the bonnet of his insensible and unreasonable assertions, otherwise we may not become fools and run mad at his pleasure.  
Again, where he disputeth that an infidel may reject the resurrection of the dead, the mystery of the Trinity, the eternity of the son of God, the coming in of Christ in his natural body to his disciples the doors being shut, and such like Articles of our Christian faith, as well as we may reject the real presence in the Sacrament; you may see the pure simplicity of this man, who makes Christ's entrance through a shut door, to be an Article of faith. Howbeit his master of sentences findeth documents of the Trinity in things created, and Saint Austin saith, 
Lib. 1. dist. 3. De Trinitate lib. 6. cap. 20.  Oportet ut creatorem per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspicientes, Trinitatem intelligamus, It behoveth us, that we beholding in understanding the creator by the things which were created, should understand the Trinity. Again, Tertullian hath written a book De resurrectione carnis, and Athenagoras a Christian Philosopher hath written another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of the resurrection of the dead, 
Tertullian. Athenagoras.  wherein this article of faith is sound proved by human reason, and it being a sure ground that God cannot be without his power and wisdom, and that the father is, Fons & origo Deitatis, as, sol, is, fons & origo lucis, The fountain and original of the Godhead, as the sun is the fountain and original of light. It will not be so hard to conceive by reason, that the son of God may be begotten, & yet coeternal with God his father, but I shall not need to labour further in this point; there is a Treatise written purposely of this argument by Philip Morney a noble man of France, 
Phil. Morney.  wherein you may see how far reason may wade in these & such like articles of Christianity, & therefore if [an infidel] fly to human reason, he shall have some stay to lean upon in matters of faith, whereas neither he, nor we, nor any man else living, can find any possibility of reason or sense to induce us to believe the real presence.  
Howbeit he may do well to teach us from what an infidel should appeal to the arbitrement of human reason? is it like that any man will press an infidel with Scriptures, Fathers, & Counsels, & so to drive him to appeal to reason? Paul saith, that prophesying serveth not for infidels, but for them which believe, 
1. Cor. 14.22  where the Apostle meaneth such infidels, as be altogether strangers from Christian doctrine, and must be won by signs, not by prophesying, as for Fathers & Counsels we may not prefer them to Paul and Peter in the conversion of an infidel: and besides that, infidels will make more account of their own Prophets Epimenides, Menander, and Aratus, 
Tit. 1.12  Plato, hesiod, and Homer, & such like, than of our Fathers and Counsels: yet notwithstanding if we should confess that other matters of faith cannot be measured by human reason without danger of heresy: yet if you cleave to his faith, & not to your own reason in the real presence: you cannot choose but be an heretic, 

Dial, 2. in con.  
The Symbols or signs of the Lords body, after the priest hath invocated, are charged & made other shing.   and this doth Theodoret evidently declare in one of his Dialogues, where the heretic saith, Symbola dominici corporis & sanguinis post invocationem sacerdotis mutantur, et alia fiunt. And this he speaks of a substantial change, as our Papists do at this day; but the Catholic answereth, Signa mysticapost sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua, manent enim in priori substantia, & figura, & forma. Thus hath Theodoret a learned and ancient father of the Greek Church, written almost 1200. years ago, giving clearly to understand, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not Catholic in his time, but heretical, what the Greek Church thinketh of it at this day, may better be learned by the last Session of the Council of Florence, than by the bold face of this Papist, whose head is so full of uniform consents and arguments of credibility, 
Council. Florent. sess, ultima.  that he forgets how many of the Evangelists speak of the Lords supper.  
See then what ill luck this poor man hath, that both his uniform consents fail him, the one confuted by Theodoret and the Council of Florence, the other by Saint john's Gospel, where you shall not find one word spoken of the Sacrament: all the four Evangelists, quoth he? how I pray you? in thought, word, or deed? marry, saith he in direct and plain words? Indeed the words of three Evangelists are direct and plain against him, but the fourth saith nothing; Matthew & Mark say, that the Sacrament of Christ's blood after consecration, is the fruit of the vine: 
Math. 26.29. Mar. 14.25. cap. 22, 20.  and Luke saith, that the cup is the new Testament in his blood; now if you understand by the cup, not wine, but real blood, it will follow that Christ had two bloods, or a double blood, for than is it all one, as if Saint Luke reported our Saviour to have spoken thus, This blood contained in this cup, is the new Testament in my blood, Again all these three Evangelists say, This is my body, where the demonstrative pronoun must needs show some visible thing or other, else our Saviour dallied with his disciples, willing them to take and eat, when they saw nothing; & the disciples themselves were witless, to reach out their hands to take and eat, that which they saw not, never ask where the thing was which our Saviour spoke of: now what was this visible thing, trow ye? the body of Christ, they say is invisible, if we say it was a lump of accidents then we must imagine our Saviour to speak thus, this lump of accidents is my body, which cannot be taken directly and plainly as the words lie without figure, and therefore that sense may not be abidden, what then? can this visible thing be but bread which our Saviour did break, and his disciples did eat, whereas neither breaking nor eating can agree either to accidents or the inviolable body of Christ.  
But go too, let us admit that our Saviour spoke thus after the Catholic fashion [this that lieth hid invisibly under these visible accidents, is my body] then will it follow inanswerably either that Christ had two bodies, one visible that spoke to the disciples, another invisible that lay hid under accidents; or else, if both were but one body by miracle, that the same one body is both visible and invisible at once which is impossible, yea but God is omnipotent and nothing is to God impossible, yes, by your leave, and so will Peter Lombard tell you, 
Lib. 1. dist. 24.  if it please you to hear him: Howbeit because the popish doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be maintained, unless we hold that the body of Christ is visible and not visible at once, and also circumscribed and not circumscribed at one and the same time; I will set you down the judgement of Saint Thomas of Aquine, who avoucheth in plain and direct terms, that these contradictions cannot be avoided by appealing to God's omnipotency whereunto they are not subject, these be his words, 
Sum part. 1. quaest. 25. arti●. 3.  Quicquid potest habere rationem entis continetur sub possibilibus absolutisre spectu quorum deus dicitur omnipotens, nihil autem opponitur rationi entis nisi non ens, hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti, quod subditur divinae omnipotentiae, quod implicat in se, esse & non esse simul: hoc enim omnipotentiae non subditur, non propter defectum divinae potentiae, sed quia non potest habere rationem factibilis neque possibilis: quaecunque igitur contradictionem non implicant, subillis possibilibus continentur, respectu quorum dicitur Deus omnipotens; ea vero qua contradictionem implicant, sub divina omnipotentia non continentur, quia non possunt habere possibilium rationem, unde convenientiùs dicitur quod ea non possunt fieri, quàm quod Deus ea non possit facere; 
Luke 1: 37:  neque hoc est contra verbum angeli dicentis, non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum, id enim quod contradictionem implicat verbum esse non potest, quia nullus intellectus potest illud concipere, Whatsoever hath the reason of ens is contained under absolute possibilities, in regard whereof God is called omnipotent, now nothing is contrary to the reason of ens but non ens, this is therefore contrary to the reason of absolute possibility, which is subject to the omnipotency of God, which implieth in it, to be and not to be at one instant: now this is not subject to omnipotency, not for any defect of power in God, but because the same thing cannot have the reason of possible to be done, and impossible: whatsoever things therefore do not imply contradiction, are contained under those possibilities whereof God is called omnipotent; but the things which imply contradiction are not contained under G●ds omnipotency, because they cannot have the reason of possibilities, whereupon it is more fitly said, that these things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them; neither is this against the speech of the Angel, which said, No word shall be impossible with God; for that which implieth contradiction, is not a word, for no understanding can conceive it. Thus hath S. Thomas, the Angelical doctor, the crown and foretop of all popery, dragged out transubstantiation by the heels from under the shelter of God's omnipotency, and will not suffer such popish contradictions and impossibilities, as it is maintained by, to have any succour in the almightiness of God's power.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XIX. Prayers to Saints.  
IDeòque habet ecclesiastica disciplina, quod fideles noverunt, cùm Martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare Dei, ibi non pro ipsis oretur, pro caeteris autem commemoratis defunctis oretur, iniuria est enim pro martyr orare, cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari: and therefore it is the practice of the Church, (as the faithful do know) that when as mention is made of the Martyrs at the altar of God, they are not prayed for, as others are who are departed; for it is an injury to pray for a Martyr, unto whose prayers we ought to Not 
a by praying to them after they are dead.  commend ourselves: Austin de verbis Apostoli sermone 17. Ideo quip ad ipsam mensam non sic Martyres commemoramus, quemadmodum alios qui in pace requiescunt, ut etiam pro eis oremus, sed magis ut orent ipsi pro nobis, ut eorum vestigijs hereamus, quia impleverunt ipsi charitatem, qua Dominus dixit non posse esse maiorem, and therefore at the Lords table we do not 
b Augustine doth not say here we should pray to Martyrs:  make mention of the Martyrs, as we do of others that rest in peace, to the intent to pray for them also, but rather that they should pray for us, that we may constantly follow their steps, etc. Sancta Maria succurre miseris, etc. 
c Cavendum ne dum matris excellentia amplietur, filii gloria minuatur, etc. Bonavent. in 3. dist. 3. quest. 2. We must take heed, lest while the excellency of the mother is enlarged, the glory of the son be diminished.  Holy M●rie secure us wretches, help us that are weak hearted, comfort us that mourn, pray for the people, etc. Austin de Sanctis 
d These sermons be none of Austin's.  sermone 18. read also the 35. sermon de Sanctis.  

The Answer.  
THis point of popish doctrine may well be called a doctrine of devils, and therefore we answer them that defend it, and urge it upon us, as our Saviour answered the devil, 
Matth. 4.10. Deuter. 10.20 Rom. 10.14.  avoid Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, when Paul saith, how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? he showeth us to whom this service belongeth, namely, to him in whom we believe, 
De civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 10  which cannot agree to any creature in heaven or earth, and therefore well saith Austin, whose authority is here pretended, uni Deo & Martyrum & nostro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei qui mundum in eius confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur. We do offer sacrifice to one and the same God both of the Martyrs and ours, at which sacrifice, though the men which have overcome the world in the confession of his name, are in their place and order named, yet are they not invocated by the Priest that sacrificeth. This is a plain testimony against the invocation of dead Martyrs, and therefore we must not accept of these places, which our Papist here offereth us, according to the first view, but look better into them, and so expound them, as they may agree together with that other place which I have quoted, and here I offer you three several expositions, agreeable (I think) to Austin's words here alleged by our Papist; the first is, that the commending of us to the Martyr's prayers here spoken of, is not by prayer made unto them when they are dead, but by request made unto them before their Martyrdom, when they are alive, as the thief in the Gospel prayed our Saviour upon the cross before his death, [Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom, 
Luk. 23, 42. Libr. 1. Epist. 1 in fine. ] Cyprian writes so to Cornelius, Si quis hinc nostrum prior divinae dignationis celeritate precesserit, perseveret apud Deum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus nostris apud misericordiam patris non cesset oratio, If any of us through the goodness of God go hence first before other, let our love still continue when we are with God, that we cease not to pray before the Father's mercy, for our brethren and sisters. Secondly, when Austin saith, that the Martyrs are therefore remembered at the Altar, that they may so be moved to pray for us, he taketh the thankful commemoration of their names at the Lords table without any further praying unto than, 
Contr. Faustum lib. 20, Cap. 21.  to be a sufficient spur to exercise them to yield us such help, as they can afford us, & therefore he teacheth us elsewhere, that Christians celebrated the memories of Martyrs for these two intents,  meritis eorum consocientur, atque orationibus adinuentur, That they may be associate to the merits, 
De tempore serm. 244.  and helped with their prayers. And in another place, that Martyrs do make intercession for us, quando in nohis aliquid de suis virtutibus recognoscunt, when they find any of their virtues to lie in us. Thirdly and lastly, the one of these two places alleged for this superstitious kind of praying, may serve for an exposition of the other, for when the one saith, Iniuria est pro martyr orare, cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari, It is injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought rather to be commended. The other telleth you that the word magis, rather, is wanting, whereby we are informed, that we ought rather to pray to Martyrs, than for Martyrs, and yet neither the one simply lawful, nor the other.  
Now, touching the last authority out of the counterfeit Sermons De sanctis, it is shamefully derogatory to the mediation of Christ jesus, so as a Christian heart can hardly brook it; we think it a foul speech, that Cardinal Bembus used in an Epistle he wrote to Clarles the fifth, 
Bembus.  wherein he calleth the blessed Virgin, Dominam & Deam nostram, Our Lady and Goddess. But here in these Sermons she is called, forma Dei, the form of God: so likewise Ambrose Catherine in the Council of Trent calleth her, 
Sess. 2.  fidelissimam Dei sociam, the most faithful mate of God; and these Sermons say little less, where we read, Te rex regum ut sponsam sibi associate, Thee the King of Kings doth associate to himself as his spouse. To be short, this wretched author calleth her, Sponsam Dei, reginam coelorum, Dominam angelorum, mundi redemptricem, reportatricem gratiae reconciliationis, The Spouse of God, the Queen of heaven, the Lady of Angels, the Redeemer of the world, the bringer of the grace of reconciliation; and teacheth us to invocate her after this manner, Tu es spes unica peccatorum, per te speramus veniam delictorum, in te nostrorum est expectatio praemiorum, Thou art the only hope of sinners, by thee we hope for pardon of our sins, in thee we look for our rewards. And then followeth immediately, Sancta Maria succurre miseris, etc. Holy Marie help us wretches, as our Papist here hath alleged; if this Divinity may be tolerated, then let our gathered sticks, 
jerem. 7.18.  and the Fathers kindle the fire, and our women knead dough to bake cakes for the Queen of heaven, and let the Collyridians be heretics no longer, Christus dixit (saith Epiphanius) quid mihi & tibi est mulier? non dum venit hora mea, 
Heres. 59 joh. 2.4.  quo non putarent aliqui magis eximiam esse sanctam Virginem, mulierem eam appellavit veluti prophetans, quae essent futura in terra sectarum & haereserie genera, ut ne aliqui nimium admirati sanctam, in hanc haeresim eiusque deliramenta dilabantur, Christ said, what have I to do with this woman? mine hour is not yet come, that some might not think the holy Virgin to be more excellent than she was, he calleth her woman prophesying as it were, what kinds of sects and heresies there should be in the world, lest some admiring too much her holy person, should fall into this doting heresy. And Ambrose, 
In Rom. Cap. 1  Isti se non putant reos qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto domino creaturas adorant, nam & ideo ad reges per Tribunos & Comites itur, quia homo utique est rex, & nescit quibus debeat rempub. credere, ad Deum autem, quem nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit promerendum, suffragatore non est opus, sed mente devota, ubicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei respondebit illi, These men think not themselves guilty, which give the honour of the name of God to a creature, and leaving the Lord, adore creatures: for therefore indeed, we go to Kings by Tribwes and Earls, because the King is a man, and knoweth not to whom to commit the public affairs; but to God, from whom nothing is hidden, for he knoweth all men's need, we have no need of any to speak for us, but a devout mind, for wheresoever a man so qualified speaketh, he will answer. These be reverend witnesses, such as cannot be excepted against, to whom Chrysostom's witness may be added out of his Homilies de poenitentia, Homines utuntur atriensibus, 
Homil. 4.  (saith he) in Deo nihil est tale, sine mediatore est execrabilis, Men use dorekeepers, in God there is no such thing, for he is execrable or easy to be entreated, without a mediator. And again elsewhere, 
De profect. evang.  Nihil tibi opus est patronis apud Deum neque enim tam facile Deus audit si alij pro nobis orent, quam si ipsi òremus, et si pleni simus omnibus malis, With God thou hast no need of any Patrons, for God doth not so readily hear, if others pray for us, as if we pray ourselves, although we be full of all manner of evils. Wherefore they that set up to themselves new mediators, whether it be of redemption or intercession, for by such nice distinctions our good Catholics elude the authority of Saint Paul, those men dishonour jesus Christ our only mediator, 
1. Tim. 2.5.  and so make open show to the world, that they are the members of Antichrist.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XX. Vows of Chastity and marriage of Priests.  
VEteribus judeorum sacerdotibus uxores ad usum habere licebat, etc. It was lawful for the ancient Priests among the jews, to have the use of wives, because they 
a After that David had sorted them, not before.  had much time wherein they were not employed in the administration of their office; but when the time drew near, wherein they were to serve in their turns: First, having prepared themselves some days before they came unto the Temple to offer to God, but now there ought to be 
b Why do you not observe this as well as the other?  seven Deacons, and so many Priests as every Church may have two Priests, and every City one Bishop, and for this cause ought they all of them, to abstain from women, because they are all of them bound 
c What? night and day? continually without intermission?  continually, to attend upon their office in the Church, neither have they any time of intermission, wherein after their companying with their wives, they may 
d There was never any purification of Priests since Christ's time, yet many were married, neither is it needful to purify an undefiled bed. Hebr. 13 4.  be purified, as the Priests of the jews had, for they are to offer every week, if not every day unto strangers, yet twice every week for their Parochians, and there are daily some sick persons to be baptized, Saint Ambrose in his Commentary upon the third Chapter of the first Epist. to Timothy.  

The Answer.  
THese Vows, and single life of Priests, which our Papist here propoundeth for Catholic, proceeded first from the Devil the spirit of error, and so Paul teacheth us in the first to Timothy, 
Cap. 4.1.3.  neither is it any thing to the purpose, that the ancient Fathers allowed of these errors, and gave them countenance in their writings, for heretics did so likewise aswell as Catholics, and the Fathers did it not of a set deliberate judgement, but of an extraordinary zeal and love they bore to that kind of life, especially in God's Ministers, Castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens, 
Ier: in Math. cap. 19, Orig: in Rom. ca 12, lib. 9  Chastity hath a fair show, and doth easily entice any man to it, saith Jerome, and Origen, Potest aliquis de Castitate plus sapere quàm oportet sapere, A man may have a better conceit of Chastity, than he ought to have; and that the Fathers sometime went beyond the bounds of sobriety in this point of doctrine, let Chrysostome serve for example, who writes thus in his first Homily upon Matthew, 
Chrysost: in Math. Hom. 1.  Haec ipsa coniunctio maritalis malum est coram Deo, non dico peccatum, sed malum, This very conjunction of married couples is evil before God, I do not say it is sin, but evil. And yet presently after in the same place he saith, Non potest fiery ut una eademque res pro part sit justitia, & pro part peccatum, aut enim tota est justitia, aut totum est peccatum, quia libido in maritis & adulteris res una est. It cannot be that one & the same thing, should be partly righteousness, and partly sin, but it must be either all righteousness, or all sin, because lust in married persons and adulterers is one thing. You shall have another example out of the west, I mean out of Tertullian, who though he were a Priest himself, as Jerome witnesseth, 
Descrip: ecclesiast: lib. 1, ca 11. Tertul: lib. de exhort. ad castitat.  and married too, as appeareth by his Book written to his wife, saith notwithstanding, In matrimonio deprehendo, quae stupro competunt, In matrimony I find some things, which are competent to adultery. And again, Nuptiae ex eo constant quod est stuprum, Marriage consisteth of that which is whoredom. The like uncivil out-roads against Gods holy ordinance, may you find in Jerome against joviniane, and helvidius, and in his Letter to Gerontia, and in some other of the ancient Fathers, and therefore in all equity you must think they are not fit judges to determine either of Priest's marriage, or vows of Chastity.  
Howbeit, let us hear what they say, The first is Ambrose, whose reason (drawn from the Priests under the law) is now nothing worth among us, where neither of the Sacraments is so often to be attended upon, but that your Priests, for aught may appear, have time enough to be purified in, neither was this often baptizing and communicating general every where, or most where in Ambroses' time. Again, what impurity or pollution can there be in the true and lawful use of marriage? doth Saint Paul say, [the bed is undefiled, 
Hebr. 23, 4. De bono coniug. cap. 11. Socrat. hystor. lib. 1. cap. 8. ] and Austin, Sancta sunt corpora coniugatorum fidem sibi & domino seruantium? The bodies of married folks are holy, if they keep their faith between themselves, and to the Lord. And doth not Paphnutius that worthy Confessor, say in the hearing of all the Fathers in the Counsel of Nice, Viri cum uxore legitima concubitus, castimonia est? The companying of a man with his lawful wife, is chastity? Verily, I see not why I may not answer Saint Ambrose, as the voice of God from heaven answered Saint Peter in the like case, [those things that God hath purified, pollute thou not.] I am sure Ignatius giveth him a sharper answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act 10, 15, & 11, 9 ad Philadelph.  That is to say, He that calleth lawful copulation and procreation of children, corruption and pollution; that man hath the apostatical Dragon, the Devil dwelling in him.  
Thirdly, we must understand that those legal impure things were not so, all of them in their own nature, but so laid apart by God's law as unclean to signify the inward purity, that God required in the souls and spirits of them that approached unto him, for there is no other reason of worth why a Conie, 
Levit. cap. 11.  or a Hare should be more unclean than a Bull, or a Cow, or why a Duck or a Goose should be more pure, than a Swan or a Heronshaw. And this appeareth by the generality of Gods grant or Patent given to Noah, 
Genes. 9.3.  and his Sons in the ninth of Genesis. Now this outward bodily purity was requisite in all that meddled with God's mysteries both priest and people, 
1. Sam. 21, 4. Exod. 19.15.  as that noble priest Abimelech teacheth, who would not suffer David and his men to eat of the hallowed bread of God, unless they had been clear before for some good time, from the company of their wives. Here-hence than we learn three things; first, that as meat, so marriage of itself polluted not, no not in time of the law, but because the ceremonial law which then had place, had so appointed. Secondly, that if it were to be observed still in this point of companying with wives, than not only the Priest that ministereth, but the people that receiveth, should be subject unto it; nay, rather the people than the priest, because the priest hath no such particular commandment. And thirdly, that outward cleanness appointed in the law, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 4.  signified inward purity, and so Cyprian applieth it in one of his Epistles. Now those outward shadows, having served out their prenticeship, are now made free, and may not still be counted shadows under the Gospel, wherein the thing signified by them, is required of God with open face without any ceremonial obscurity, Imagines transeunt admipletae, 
Tertul. de Monog.  definitiones permanent adimplendae, imagines prophetant, definitiones gubernant, the figures pass away being fulfilled, or definitions remain to be fulfilled, that figures prophecy, but the definitions govern. 
Cap. 21, 17. etc.  There be a number of blemishes reckoned up in Leviticus, whereby the seed of Aaron was made uncapable of offering the bread of his God, yet have they no place in the ministery of the Gospel, further than to signify how free it should be from the blemishes of the soul.  
But to send Ambrose away with his quietus est, 
1. Cor. 23, & 24, etc. Exod. 30.7, 8.  we must understand that before David in the end of his reign appointed the courses and orders of the Priests, and Levites; the high Priest himself was to offer incense morning and evening, and otherwise to minister in the tabernacle, yet is it clear, that he abstained not from his wives company, 
Quest. 82.  but begat Sons and Daughrers, and this doth Austin acknowledge upon Leviticus, where he demandeth how the high Priest could offer incense daily morning and evening, which by reason of sickness incident, and the duty of marriage he must intermit? and than he answereth, that God might preserve him in health for his service, and that the high Priest might have prerogative above other men, not to be defiled by the act of matrimony; yet this last answer pleased him not, 
Retract. lib. 2.  and therefore in his retractations he saith, that the high Priest after morning Sacrifice might use his wife, and then wash his clothes and purify himself against the evening, which utterly defaceth Ambroses' argument, for if the Priests under the law had such a prerogative, as the act of matrimony could not make them unclean, or being made unclean in the morning, might so hastily purify themselves before evening: then verily their example yieldeth no reason against the marriage either of popish Priests, or our Ministers.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXI.  
SAint 
a This Chrysostome was never Bishop of Constantinople.  Chrysostome. Honorabiles, inquit, sunt nuptiae & cubile thorum immaculatum, etc. Marriage is honourable (saith he) and the marriage bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge: but now the privilege of marriage cannot excuse thee, for he that hath once joined himself in the 
b All true Christians have so joined themselves, Hebr. 12.22.  fellowship of Angels, if he shall forsake the same, and entangle himself in the 
c Marriage is not a snare, but a mean to save us from the snares of Satan.  snares of marriage, he shall defile himself with the 
d It cannot be adultery, and worse than adultery too.  sin of adultery, and although thou dost oftentimes call it by the name of marriage, yet I do pronounce, that it is so much 
e That is to say, Epist. 6.  worse than adultery, by how much an Angel is greater and better than a mortal man. 
f Id est, nulla.  Tom. 6. ad Theodorum monachum homilia. 21.  

The Answer.  
CHrysostome is next, but it is not an Homily, but an Epistle to Theodorus which is here fathered upon Chrysostome; howbeit, supposing that Chrysostome is the true author & founder of that counterfeit Epistle. I answer that he is so hot in his amplifications that he forgets himself, for if the marriage of one that hath vowed chastity be the sin of adultery: how can it be so far worse than adultery, as he saith it is? and if it be so far worse than adultery, as an Angel is greater and better than a mortal man; then why may not we pronounce likewise, that it is not the sin of adultery? but (I beseech you) consider what fellowship of Angels the promise of chastity joineth us into: doth not the holy Ghost say as much, and more a great deal of all the faithful children of God married, and unmarried? [Ye are come unto Mount Zion, 
Hebr. 12.22.  and to the City of the living God, the celestial jerusalem, and to the fellowship of innumerable Angels, & to the company of the first borne which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just and perfect men, and to jesus the mediator of the new testament, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel, etc.] We see here that a true Christian is joined in fellowship with innumerable Angels, and far more than that comes to, yet I would reckon him for a hasty disputer, that durst not venture thereof, to conclude, that every man or woman, taking a wife or a husband after profession of Christianity, defileth himself with the sin of adultery, and far worse too.  
Howbeit, it may be Chrysostome had respect to that place, where our Saviour saith, 
Math, 22.30. etc. Mar. 112.25.  that in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are married, but are as the Angels of God in heaven; if it be so, than his votaries wait, till the resurrection be past, and then lay claim to the fellowship of Angels, for being as the Angels of God, is not there spoken of only in regard of not marrying, but also in regard of not dying, 
Cap. 20.36.  as Saint Luke expoundeth it, look the Bible over and over, and you shall never read that Angels refused man or woman's fellowship because they were married, or accepted of it, because they were unmarried and single, and therefore these vehement speeches of the ancient Fathers, especially Chrysostome, may not be racked to the uttermost, but charitably and friendly construed to the best, Chrysostome here in his vehemency, goeth beyond measure in reprehending, & the Christians of his time in their lightness went beyond measure in vowing, yet the East-Church than never exacted any such promise or vow, but left every Christian man and woman to their own liberty, 
Socrat. histor: lib. 5. cap. 21.  Illustres presbyteri in Oriente, & Episcopi etiam, modo ipsi volluerint, nulla lege coacti ab uxoribus abstinent, nam non pauci ipsorum, dum Episcopatum gerunt, etiam liberos ex uxore legitima procreant, Famous Ministers in the east, yea, and Bishops also are not compelled by any law to abstain from wives, for many of them even when they are Bishops, do beget children of a lawful wife.  
Well, but what's that charitable construction you speak of? I pray you let us hear it, and so an end. Content, Chrysostome saith, that such marriage is worse than adultery, and Austin saith as much, yet Austin expoundeth himself presently in the same place, 
De bono viduit. cap. 9  saying, Non quod ipsae nuptiae vel talium damnandae iudicentur, daemnatur propositi fraus, damnatur fracta voti fides, etc. Not that the very marriages even of such men as aught to be judged damnable, their deceitful purpose is damnable, the breach of their vow is damnable. And again, Damnantur tales, non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiae primam fidem irritam faecerunt, Such are condemned, not because they did afterward enter into the state of marriage, but because they broke their former vow of continency. You see here how Austin expoundeth himself, and therefore if we charitably expound Chrysostome after the same manner, we have as good warrant as Austin can give us, nevertheless to speak yet more precisely, we may not take the breach of faith to be so great a sin, as the giving of it unadvisedly beyond our strength, if a man should vow to fast bread and water all the days of his life, and afterward feeling his strength to fail, should fall to better fare, for the recovery of the same: there is no reasonable man that will find fault with him for breaking that yoke of bondage at the last, but for thrusting his neck unto it at the first Si quis castitatem promiserit, & servare non poterit, 
In Leuit. lib. 3  pronunciet peccatum suum, (saith Cirill in one place,) If any man have promised continency, and cannot keep it, let him confess his sin, But he saith again in another place, 
In Leuit. lib. 16.  Oportet commetiri doctrinam pro virium qualitate, & huiusmodi, qui non possunt capere sermonem de castitate, concedere nuptias, We must measure the doctrine according to men's strength, and grant marriage to such as cannot receive that doctrine of continency.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXII.  
EPiphanius, Quae enim ad sacerdotium tradita sunt, propter eminentiam celebrationis sactorum, ea ad omnes aequaliter ferri putaverunt, etc. Those traditions which were delivered peculiarly for the Clergy, by reason of their 
a None more supereminent, than the Apostles, who were married men, so was Peter himself.  supreminencie in the celebration of the divine mystery, these heretics would have all men tied unto, when they did hear that a Bishop ought to be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, and continent, and likewise of Deacons and Priests, for in truth since the coming of Christ, the Doctrine 
b Where is it forbidden in all the new testament?  of the Gospel doth not admit into these offices any that have married a second wife, by reason of the excellent dignity of priesthood, and this holy 
c But either Churches observed it not, as appeareth in Tertullian, De Monog.  church doth sincerely observe, yet doth not the church admit any into those Offices, that is the husband but of one wife, whose wife is yet living with him in the fellowship of marriage, but him only 
d Here Epiphanius is falsely translated, that Epiphanius might not seem unreasonable.  that either was never married, or that after the death of his first wife liveth unmarried, the church receiveth into the office of a Deacon, Priest, Bishop, or Subdeacon, which is especially observed where the Ecclesiastical Canons 
e There is small sincerity in such Canons.  are sincerely kept, but thou wilt say unto me, that in many places Priests and Deacons do live in wedlock, but this is not according to the sincerity of the Canons, etc. Thus have I 
f You must search better, or you will never find it.  searched, and (as I hope) made sensible the second mortal wound, which (as I said) you have given to your own cause by fashioning unto yourselves such an imaginary and mathematical Church, as all the 
g They acknowledged no other.  ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church did never know, nor acknowledge; whereupon it will follow, if that out of the Church, as out of the Ark, there be no salvation, that all these reverend Fathers and Doctors were heretics, and are damned Spirits, or else that you be heretics yourselves.  

The Answer.  
EPiphanius comes in now to tell his tale, and our Papist bearing good will to traditions, englisheth quae tradita sunt, which were delivered, those traditions which were delivered, and yet when all comes to all, those traditions are found in Paul to Timothy and Titus, and they are as clear against the necessity of single life in a Bishop, as can be desired. Paul saith, [a Bishop must be the husband of no more but one wife] at once, 
Cap. 3.2. Tit. 1.5.6.  for that's his meaning in the first to Timothy. Now in the Epistle to Titus, he willeth Titus [to ordain Elders in every City,] such as he found irreprooveable, the husbands of one wife, etc. evidently teaching us, that marriage was then no bar against being a Bishop, or a Minister of the Gospel: and so saith Chrysostome, Ita pretiosa res est, ut cum ipsa etiam possit quis ad sanctum Episcopatus solium subvehi, 
In Tit. Serm. 2  It is so precious a thing, that a man with it may be advanced to the seat of a Bishop: Again he translates, qui abuna continuit, which hath contained from one, him only that was never married, adding the word [only] to the text, and perverting the meaning of Epiphanius, who thought it commendable for a man to renounce his wife, ob continentiam, for continency, and tells us elsewhere, that Priests were chosen, 
Here. 61. cont. Apost. in compend. doctr: eccles.  ex his qui continent à proprijs uxoribus, aut ab unis nuptijs viduitatem seruantibus, Of these which contained from their own wives, or after their first wives were dead, lived unmarried. Whereby we learn that he speaks here of such as kept their bodies clear from the use of their wives, which Saint Paul forbids, 
1. Cor. 7, 3, etc.  not of such as were never married, as our Papist dreameth.  
But what be these Canons that Epiphanius talks of? where may a man find them? what Council decreed them? what words are they conceived in? I fear me, when all is done, they will prove Apocryphal, agreed upon in some Provinces where the chief Bishops had been wanton, and written love Sonnets in their youth, as one Heliodorus did, who to prove himself a new man in his age, caused such Canons to be made against the Ministers of Thessalia. The like may be thought of such Bishops as were chosen from among such as led vitam solitariam, a solitary life; 
Socrat: eccles: hyst. lib. 5, cap. 21. Epiphan: in Comp: doct: eccles.  as the manner was in Epiphanius time, who being magnified in the world for their chastity, thought good to impose it as a law upon their brethren. Again, it might well be, that these Canons being borne and bred among heretics, such as the Montanists, catharan's, apostolics, and such like, were laid hold upon by Catholic Bishops with some mitigation, thinking it no small disgrace, that heretics should go beyond them in a virtue: then so highly esteemed in the world, howsoever it was, 
Sorom: lib. 6, 23. Epiph: her: 26  yet Epiphanius being brought up solitarily among the Monks of Egypt and Palestine, and having escaped the filthy enticements of the Guostickes, to his great praise; it is no marvel though he were somewhat hardly conceited of the marriage of Priests, and talk flyingly of I wot not what apocryphal Canons, whose authors knew them not, nor they their authors.  
Wherefore, till these hidden Canons be brought to light, it is fit other known Canons should take place. In the Canons of the Apostles, thus it is written, Episcopus, aut presbyter, 
Can. 5.  aut Diaconus uxorem suam pretextu religionis ne abijciat, aut si abiecerit à communione segregetur, etsi perseveret deponatur, Let not a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon put away his wife, under pretence of religion, if he do, let him be barred from the communion, if he continue in his error, let him be deposed. 
Can 4.  In the Council of Gangra thus, Si quis discernint presbyterum coniugatum, tanquam occasionem nuptiarum quod efferre non debeat, & abeius oblatione abstinet, Anathema sit, If any man judge of a married Bishop, as if because he is married, he ought not to minister, and do abstain from his ministration, let him be accursed. In the Council of Ancyra thus, 
Can. 9  Diaconi, si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sint, velle se matrimonio copulari, high, si postea uxores duxerint, in ministerio maneant, Deacons, if in their very ordination, they protest that they will be married, if afterwards they do marry wives, aught to remain in the ministery. In the Council of Constantinople thus, 
Dist. 31. quoniam, & Canon. Tertullianis Conc. 6. can. 13  Si quis praesumpserit contra Apostolicos Canones aliquos praesbyterorum & Diaconorum privare à contactu & communione legalis uxoris suae, deponatur, similiter & praesbyter aut Diaconus, qui religionis causa uxorem suam expellit, excommunicetur, If any shall presume contrary to the Canons of the Apostles to separate any Elders, or Deacons from the company and society of his lawful wife, let him be deposed, & likewise the Elders or Deacons, which under colour of Religion putteth away his wife, let him be excommunicated. To be short, when the Council of Nice purposed to sever Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons from the use of their wives, Paphnutius thought it unlawful and intolerable so to do, and brought the whole Council to be of his mind, 
Serem. lib. 1.22.  Paphnutij sententiam approbavit Concilium, & de hac nullam legem tulit, sed eam in cuiusque arbitrio, non in necessitate poni voluit, The Council did approve the sentence of Paphnutius, and made no decree concerning this matter, but left it in every man's choice, and made not a matter of necessity.  
But what should we talk of sincere Canons, in such matters as be overruled and determined in the Canon of the Scripture? for if it be doubted whether a Bishop may marry; Paul saith, to avoid fornication, let every man have his wife, and in another place, [marriage is honourable among all. And again, [if thou takest a wife, thou sinnest not. 
1. Cor. 7.2. Heb. 13, 4. 1. Cor. 7.28. 1. Cor. 7, 9, 39 Tertul. de Mo. nog. ] If you doubt whether he may marry a second wife, Paul saith, [if they (meaning widowers) cannot abstain, let them marry,] and Tertullian after his fall to Montanisme, objecteth against Christians, that their Bishops married second wives, quot & digami president apud vos. If you doubt whether a Minister may contain from the use of his wife, Paul saith, [let the husband give to his wife due benevolence.] And again, [the husband hath not the power of his own body, but the wife. 
1. Cor. 7, 3. 1. Cor. 7, 4. 1. Cor. 7.5. ] If you doubt whether a Minister may contain with his wife's consent; Paul saith, [defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting & prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency:] & in another place, [art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. 
1. Cor. 7.27. ] Mark well these places of holy Scripture, and then judge how sincere those Canons were, that Epiphanius talks of, I doubt you will easily find, that the word of God and sincerity would agree better.  
Now, where this reverend Father speaks of the Supereminencie, and excellent dignity of Priesthood, as if the honourable institution and ordinance of God did abase it; we must needs think him too partially affected: for the Apostles of Christ, whom our Saviour advanced to the highest degree that ever was in ministery, were almost all married men, & to say that Peter was not as excellent an Apostle as S. john, and that the married Priests of the primitive Church were not as excellent men in all respects, as the rest that lived singly without wives, is more than any godly learned man will venture to avouch; yet notwithstanding, the dignity of Priesthood, doth not free any mortal man from the danger of fornication, neither will Satan therefore cease to tempt us, because we are Priests, but set himself so much the rather to move us to incontinency: and therefore if a man, feeling his own weakness, shall soothe himself with an overweening conceit of the excellency of his Priesthood, and so neglect the remedy that God hath appointed; how can that man promise to himself any assistance from God to keep him from falling?  
Thus much briefly of every point of Doctrine, and every testimony thereto belonging, whereof you may gather, that this second wound is easily healed, I hope the disagreement that was between Paul and Barnabas, doth not prove them to be of two Churches, or either the one or the other to be a damned heretic. The ancient Fathers were men, and might err, and did err many of them together, even whole Counsels, as it is apparent to the world, yet God forbidden that therefore we should count them Heretics, and throw them overboard out of the Ark of God's Church; No friend Papist, though we descent from them in some points of doctrine, as they likewise discented from such as were before them, yet all of us hold one foundation, and it was no part of their belief, that such as held not these points, were out of the Church, neither is it any part of our belief, 
Ad Fortunatianum Epist. 111.  that such as held them, were damned Heretics; Austin saith, Catholicorum, & laudatorum hominum disputationes velut scripturas Canonicas habere non debemus, ut nobis non liceat, saluae honorificentiae quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, We ought not to have the same, in regard the discourses of Catholic and laudable men, as the canonical scriptures, that we may not saving that honour which is due to those men, disallow and refuse something in their writings. And when Jerome had alleged the authority of six or seven Fathers against Austin, 
Epist: 19  in defence of Peter's hypocrisy; Austin is bold to answer him thus, Solis eye scripturarum libris, qui iam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque defer, ut nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimè credam: Alios autem italego ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepalleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia per illos authores canonicos, vel probobabili ratione, quòd à vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt. I have learned to give this reverence and honour only to those books of the holy scriptures, which are now called Canonical, to believe assuredly, that no author of them did err in writing any thing. But others I read, so that of how great learning or holiness soever they be, I do not therefore think a thing to be true because they thought so, but because they were able to persuade it by those Canonical authors, or by some probable reason agreeing with the truth.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXIII.  
PRo. The Doctors did err grossly in many things, as you must of force confess, & therefore a feeble foundation are they to build our salvation upon: Austin wrote his Retractations, & in the doctrine of purgatory, which you labour so seriously to build upon his authority, he was so 
a These places are too hot for our Papist to handle.  doubtful and wavering, that sometime he writeth thereof doubtfully, as [fieri potest] it may be that there is such a thing, [forsitan ita est] peraduentute it is so; sometime he seemeth to affirm it, and sometime he flatly denieth it. Irenaeus held, that the souls of the righteous should remain in a place appointed for them of God, and not enter into heaven before the general resurrection. Tertullian wrote a book of the unlawfulness of second marriages. Hilary held, that Christ did walk upon the water by the nature of his body. Thus could I run over all the Fathers, and find in them many such points of doctrine, which you do no less detest than we do those things which you do labour to build upon their authority. Now tell me, why do we exclude the Fathers out of our Church, by refusing some of their opinions, more than you do exclude them out your Church, by refusing of other some? or why is it not as free for us to reject their authority in the one, as it is for you to reject it in the other? or why may not I argue (as you do against us) that because these doctors did hold these opinions which I have set down, that therefore the universal Church in their time, did embrace the same? or (if that their said opinions had been erroneous) that some men or other would have impugned than by writing? Pap. Your answer doth consist on divers points, 
b Where, or when? here I am sure you do not  all which I will prosecute particularly and in order: first therefore, I must not deny that the doctors were men, and that they were not without their blemishes and errors, 
c We must d sappoint you of your hope. Look the answer.  hoping that you will also confess, that they were such men as for their great learning and piety, have ever been admired, and had in high reverence of all posterity, and accepted for the principal workmen in the building of God's spiritual Temple next unto the Apostles of Christ. To err is incident to man's frailty, and to 
d As you papists do.  persist in an error, is brutish, but to 
e As you papists cannot abide to do.  acknowledge and recant an error, is the work of the holy Ghost, and a great argument of an humble and weak spirit, and therefore if you seek to detract from Saint Austin's doctrine by abraiding him with his Retractations you do but seek to quench the flaming fire with pouring oil upon it; but if you do 
f We insinuate that every thing is not Gospel that S. Austin writes  insinuate by alleging of his Retractations, that he hath retracted any thing by me alleged against you out of his works, the book is extant, let the judge be brought forth: your next allegation, whereby you seek to extenuate Saint Austin's authority, is the instability of his 
g His doctrine touching purgatory, but now simply, as you insinuate.  doctrine, for one while, say you, he affirmeth, another he denieth, another he doubteth; it were an hard matter for you to persuade any man to credit you herein, that hath read how famous Saint Austin was for his great learning amongst the Gentiles before the conversion; and how, after his conversion, he hath been ever held for the most learned doctor and subtle disputer that ever flourished in the Church for who so 
h Believe not us, but your own eyes, look and peruse the places.  believeth you herein, must also believe therewithal, that S. Austin had neither learning, wit, nor regard of his repuputation: but let us admit that such foul blots, as you do pretend, had dropped from his pen, is it not like think you, that in his 
i What if he were not resolved when he wrote his Retractations, how then?  Retractations they should have been discovered and wiped away? This might serve for answer of this frivolous objection, concerning the instrabilitie of Saint Austin's doctrine; but because it is a string much harped on, let us assay, by harping, whether it be a true cord or not: now do you 
k Be like you will not know wheere, unless it be showed you.  
k This place of Austin is clear against limbus puerorum.  show me where Saint Austin doth deny purgatory, as I have showed you where he hath affirmed it? Pro. Austin in his 14. Chapter De verbis Apostoli, saith thus, The Lord who shall come to judge the quick and the dead, as the Gospel saith, shall divide them all into two parts, whereof one shall be placed on his right hand, and the other on his left; to those on his right hand he shall say, Come ye blessed etc. The one he calleth his kingdom, the other damnation with the devil, there is no third place left for infants; and a little after he concludeth thus, if there shall be a right hand and a left, since we have none other place by the Gospel, behold the kingdom of heaven is on the right hand. Pa. Here is a fair 
l There be fairer shows in Austin then this.  show, but all is not gold that glistereth; S. Austin in that place, having to deal with the Pelagians, who held that children which die before baptism, should (by reason of their innocency) attain unto eternal salvation, but not unto the kingdom of heaven; and that children are to be baptised, not for eternal life, but for the kingdom of heaven: for confutation of that heresy, doth there labour to prove that whosoever doth not appertain to the kingdom of heaven, doth appertain unto damnation; his argument is this. At the general judgement, Christ shall divide the quick and the dead into two parts, whereof one shallbe on his right hand, another on his left: therefore children which die before baptism, must either be on the right hand, to whom the kingdom of heaven doth appertain; or on the left, whose portion is 
m That is damnation into everlasting fire with the devil and his Angels, Mat. 25.41. I trow this is hell, not limbus puerorum.  damnation: for, saith he, there remaineth no third place for infants. What maketh this place against purgatory? for they that do allow low of Purgatory, do hold also that there are but two places, to wit, heaven and hell; and that whosoever shall be placed in purgatory for a time, doth notwithstanding appertain to one of those two places, for a third place they likewise do not know: behold how easy a matter it is to carp at contrariety in any man's writings, be they never so plain and perspicuous 
n Hear the floodgate is opened to a great deal of profane, and irreligious talk.  even so do the jews tax the writings of the Evangelists with contrariety, and great appearance thereof there seemeth to be therein. S. john saith, He that is borne of God, sinneth not; And again, in the same Epistle, he saith, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: The Bee sucketh honey, and the Spider poison, take away the authority of the Church, Counsels, and Fathers, and leave every man to his own 
o As though fancy had no place in Counsels, and fathers, but only in Scriptures.  fancy in the interpretation of Scriptures, and open the fountain of all heresy and Atheism. After your single encounter with Saint Austin, you seek to overthrow the credit of all the Doctors at once, by taxing them with many gross errors, I grant the doctors had their errors and imperfections, so had S. Peter, for S. Paul withstood him to his face, and 
p We do not say they are.  are your new writers of the purest stamp, free trow ye? much less are chronographers & writers of civil histories: what then? shall we 
q No, but resolute divines.  become Sceptic Philosophers? what shall we not believe that which they do write out of their own knowledge, and whereof themselves were eye witnesses, and consequently shall we believe nothing but what we do 
r Yes, what we taste, smell, and feel too, Lord, what vain chat is this?  hear and see? If you will afford an Historiographer any credit in these cases, afford the Catholic doctor the like in the same case, believe that which he writeth as an eye witness; if not, believe an uniform consent and harmony of divers of them in a matter of fact, confirmed by the testimony of their own eyes: if not, yet believe them at the least wherein they do produce themselves for eye witnesses, and 
s All this is but impudent facing.  a thousand other like witnesses with them, of this last sort are most of the testimonies of the doctors, which I have produced against you: they writ that prayers were made for the dead, that sacrifice was offered for the quick and the dead, that it was universally observed in all Churches, they were present themselves, and heard and saw it done, and thousands more with them, and were themselves principal agents in the doing of it. Now let us see what those errors be wherewith you seek to bring the ancient doctors out of credit. Irenaeus held 
t Belike Irenaeus never heard any news of Purgatory.  that the souls of the righteous should rest in a place for them appointed of God until the general resurrection; that Satan did not know his own damnation before the coming of Christ. Tertullian, that second marriages were not lawful. Hilary, that Christ did walk upon the water by the nature of his body. Cyprian held rebaptisation, and so might I pass through the rest of these and such like errors, 
u As though they were not deliberate assertions, but only escapes.  escaped in the writings of the fathers; Erasmus alleged a threefold reason. First; the points wherein they erred, were not as then called in question, or, if they were, the Church had not as then determined of them. Secondly, they were constrained, for the confutation of heresies, to handle such high mysteries as were beyond their capacity. Thirdly, in dealing earnestly against heretics, they were sometime, with fervour, carried into the contrary extreme. Now will I show you the difference beeweene these and the like errors escaped in the writings of the fathers, and those points of doctrine wherein I have cited them as witnesses against you; the one they deliver as their own private opinion, the other set down as a doctrine 
x How knew they that, or you that they did so?  generally received, and practised through the universal Church, the one is (as the Proverb saith) but one doctor's opinion, the other an uniform consent of many; the one the Church hath rejected, the other it hath received and practiseth. Thus 
y So may you see, you have said nothing:  may you see the reason why the doctors are to be rejected in the one, and received in the other, why we do not exclude them out of our Church, as you have excluded them out of yours. Pro. You shall find in the Fathers as many places against those points of doctrine, as you shall find for them, and besides that many books fathered upon the fathers are bastards. Pa. It is a great argument of a 
y It will at length pull the crown from your Pope's head, as desperate as you make it.  desperate cause, when we see the authority of any authentic writer so plain and direct against us, as it cannot be avoided by any gloss or colourable interpretation, to seek to evade by carping at contrariety in the same writer, and in so doing we shall show ourselves more desirous to obscure a truth than to bring it to light: touching your last objection, I am content upon any reasonable cause of challenge, to forbear to vouch any book that you shall suspect of bastardy. Thus have I answered all your cavils and calumniations objected against the ancient doctors, which is your last refuge, for when you cannot tell how by some cunning interpretation or gloss to unloose the knot; your manner is to cut it in sunder, and to break away.  

The Answer.  
We are come now to a great deal of void talk of the errors of the fathers, and doctors, and Austin's retracting, and wavering in the doctrine of purgatory. The first is confessed, not simply, but under hope that we will also confess that the doctors were not only admired for their learning & piety, but accepted also for the principal workmen, next unto the Apostles, which cannot be confessed without injury to the Evangelists, and other that had extraordinary graces, and power from above a long time after the Apostles, 
Iren. lib. 2. 28. & lib. 5. 1. Eusebius histo. eccles. lib. 3. 34 & lib. 5. 7. 9  as appeareth in Irenaeus and Eusebius, besides that we may not think a few fathers, whose writings remain extant, to be excellenter workmen than a thousand other, whose writings are lost, and their names forgotten in the world. These few doctors whose books we have, were worthy men, yet one more worthy than another, and no one of them nor all of them together, to be preferred to those that were before them. And here let it be observed that Tertullian, as he is a Montanist, is set down for one of of these admirable doctors of the Church, for he erred not in the case of second marriages while he was a Catholic doctor, but when he was an heretic and fallen from the Church; nay see further how intolerably he defaceth the fathers, when he goeth about to magnify, for if they look upon them to handle high mysteries beyond their capacity, and were carried in heat against heresy to the contrary extreme, verily their learning and piety may well be doubted of, and if they could not see the truth unless it were called into question, & determined by the Church, there is no great reason why they should be so highly admired, and had in reverence.  
What man? why say you so? the doctors had their errors and imperfections no otherwise then Saint Peter had, whom Saint Paul withstood to his face, and will you not admire and reverence Saint Peter? Yes, sir, that I will, for we speak not here of errors in living, which never any but Christ was free from, but errors in writing, whereof Saint Peter was never guilty, and therefore bethink you how, this suspicious and irreverend calling of Saint Peter's credit into question, to cloak the father's errors withal, can be the part of a good Catholic, we believe Saint Peter never erred in any thing he hath written, but you shall hardly drive us with all your wharting; to believe the like of our new writers, or your old doctors, much less the authors of profane Histories, but why keeps this man all this do, trow ye? would he have us pin our religion upon the sleeves of the doctors, and civil Historiographers too? will nothing else please him? Yes, he tells you he will be content if you will credit an uniform consent and harmony of divers doctors, producing themselves for eye witnesses, and a thousand other like witnesses with them: well, when I hear those thousand other speak, than he shall have my answer, In the mean while have we commended to him, and tell him that I cannot believe a million of thousands, when they say nothing; and here, I beseech you, note how his wit ebbs, and his tongue flows beyond the banks of all possibility, they writ saith he, that praying and sacrificing for the dead, was universally observed in all Churches, they were present themselves and hard and saw it done, and thousands more with them etc. Quid audio? Did they hear and see it done in all Churches universally? this is no lie, my Lord, and that's all that I will say to it.  
Now touching Austin, we so much the more admire him, in that he retracted his former errors, as many as he could well-obserue in his own works, neither do we doubt, but that he would have retracted more if he had lived longer, & could have considered deliberately of all that he had written, howbeit he wrote divers books after his [retractations], neither could he so narrowly look into every corner of his works, but that many things worthy to be [retracted], slipped through his fingers: to be short, his [retractations] do evidently show, that as he was a good and an honest minded man, so he altered in opinion as he grew in years, and was better instructed by long experience and travel in divinity, and so consequently, that he is so far forth to be received, as he buildeth upon the foundation of the canonical scripture, such building will stand without [retracting], all other doctrine, as it gins in man, so man may end it, neither can it stand any longer than man listeth to uphold it.  
This wavering in the matter of Purgatory, our Papist denieth impudently, & crieth in an agony, show me where Saint Austin doth deny purgatory, as I have showed you he hath affirmed it? alas, he hath showed Austin's affirmation, out of the counterfeit sermons and Homilies never either written or preached by Saint Austin, which is a most simple kind of showing, but why doth he ask where Austin denieth purgatory, and never asketh one word where he doubteth of it? These be fine fellows that ask after such points as they think they can hold talk of, and can suffer other things to pass by, as if they saw him not: Howbeit our Protestant here cities a place out of Austin's Sermons, De verbis Apostoli, which is little to the purpose, 
Serm. 4.  yet notwithstanding where our Papist answereth, that he knoweth no third place for infants, but either heaven or hell; what doth he else but disclaim his [limbus puerorum] which Pope Innocent the third, 
Cap. maiores extra de bapt.  and most of the schoolmen place above purgatory, and will needs have it to be eternal: but to help out our Protestant, let him take these places out of Austin against purgatory, 
Hypognost. lib. 5.  Primum locum fides Catholicocorum divina authoritate credit regnum esse caelorum, secundum Gehennam, ubi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur, tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scriptures sanctis inveniemus, The first place the Catholic faith doth by the authority of God believe to be the kingdom of heaven, the second to be hell, where every Apostota and alien from the faith of Christ, shall be punished everlastingly, a third place we knew not at all, neither shall we find in the holy scriptures that there is any such. Again, 
In joh. tract. 49.  Habent omnes animae cum de seculo exierint diversas receptiones suas, habent gaudium bom, mali tormenta; sed cum facta fuerit resurrectio, & bonorum gaudium amplius erit, & malorum tormenta graviora, quando cum corpore torquebuntur, All souls after they go out of the world, have divers rewards, the good have joy, and the bad torments; but when the resurrection shall come, the joy of the good shall be greater, and the torments of the bad more grievous, when they shall be tormented with their bodies. Again, 
In Psal. 32.  Si texit peccata, noluit advertere, si noluit advertere, noluit animaduertere, si noluit animaduertere, noluit punire, noluit agnoscere maluit ignoscere, If we have hid our sins, he would not see them; if he would not see them, he would not judge them; if he would not judge, he would not punish; he would not acknowledge, he had rather pardon them. Again, 
Ad Hesick. epist. 80.  In quo quemque invenerit suus novissimus dies, in hoc eum comprehendet mundi novissimus dies, quoniam qualis in die isto quisque moritur, talis in die illo iudicabitur, 
In Psal. 25.  In what state any man's last day findeth him, in the same shall the last day of the world take him, because as a man dieth in this, so shall he be in that day adjudged. And again, Valeat mihiad perfectionem liberationis tantum praetium sanguinis Domini mei, So great a price of my Lord's blood is sufficient for my perfect deliverance. 
Sermon. 57  Add to these, if you will, out of the Sermons Ad fratres in Heremo, Scitole quod cum anima á corpore evellitur, statim aut in Paradiso pro meritis bonis collocatur, aut certe pro peccatis in inferni Tartara praecipitatur. Know this, that so soon as the soul is taken out of the body, by and by it is either placed in Paradise for good deserts, or else certainly cast headlong into hell for sins.  
Thus have I showed where Austin doth deny purgatory, and though our Papist list not to hear of that side, yet let me show him likewise where Austin doubteth of purgatory, 
Encharid. cap. 69.  Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit quaeri potest, That some such thing is done after this life it is not incredible, and whether it be so done it is a question. 
Ad dulcit. quaest. 1. & lib. de fide & oper. cap. 16. de civit. dei lib. 21.26. Ibid. cap. 27.  Again, Sieve in hac vita tantum homines ista patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret quantum arbitror, aratione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae, Whether men suffer these things only in this life, or whether after this life some such judgements follow, this understanding of this sentence is not without some show of truth as I suppose. Again, Sive ibi tantum, sive hic & ibi, sive ideò hic ut non ibi, saecularia, quamuis à damnatione ventalia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inveniant; non redarguo, quia forfitan verum est, Whether things committed in this world though venial in respect of damnation, do find a transitory fire of tribulation here only, or here and there, or therefore here because not there; I seek not to convince, because perhaps it is true. And again, Quis sit iste modus, & quae sint ista peccata, quae ita impediunt perventionem ad regnum Dei, ut tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis impetrent indulgentiam? difficilimun est invenire, periculosissimum definire, ego certè usque ad hoc tempus, cum inde satagerem ad eorum indagationem, pervenire non potui, What is this manner, or what be those sins which so hinder the coming to the kingdom of heaven, that yet the merit of holy friends may obtain pardon for them? it is very hard to find, and very perilous to determine: surely though I have laboured earnestly to search, yet can I not find it out until this time.  
These places be sufficient to show Austin's wavering in the matter of purgatory, and if it were not for shame, I would show also where he affirmeth it, because our Papist hath showed it so sillily, yea, but it were a hard matter, to persuade any man to credit you herein: then let him credit his own eyes, let him look upon the places, and consider of them, and they, I trow, will be sufficient to persuade so much as you say; not so, I hope, for Austin was a great learned man before his conversion, and after his conversion the most learned doctor, and subtlest disputer that ever flourished in the Church, what then? altering in judgement is an argument of increase in learning, and our Papist himself told us a while ago, that to consist in error is brutish if therefore Austin say one thing at one time, and afterward, upon better trial and travel, say otherwise at another; I do not see how it can hinder his estimation, much less prove him to have neither learning, wit, nor regard of his reputation, as our Papist here without either learning or wit, hath concluded. What? if a man set down an error, or many errors in his young days, doubt of them in his middle age; and writ the clean contrary when he is of greater years and experience; shall he therefore be thought to have neither learning nor wit, nor regard of his reputation? No, friend papist, it would not hurt your reputation a whit, to deny that in a new book which you affirm in this, and to affirm that which you deny here, and to doubt of that whereof here you seem to be resolute, remember your own conclusion, to err is incident to man's frailty, but to persist in error, is brutish.  
Touching the quickness and acuteness of Austin in disputing: I easily confess it, for he was a learned doctor, and a most subtle disputer indeed; yet a quick wit doth soon fall into contradiction, and the heat of a quick disputer, carrieth him sometimes, as our papist telleth us out of Erasmus, 
De Genes. ad litter. lib. 10.  into the contrary extreme. Austin himself, speaking of Tertullian, saith thus, De Deo noluit aliter sapere, qui sane quoniam acutus est, inderdum contra opinionem suam visa veritate superatur, quid enim verius dicere potuit, quam id quod ait quodam loco, Esse corporale passibile est, debuit ergo mature sententiam qua paulò superius dixerat, etiam Deum corpus esse, neque enim arbitror eum ita desipuisse, ut etiam Dei naturam passibilem crederet, etc. He would not conceive otherwise of God, who indeed because he was of quick judgement, sometimes he is overcome by the sight of the truth contrary to his own opinion; for what could he speak more truly, than when he saith in a certain place, that to be bodily is to be passable, therefore he ought to have altered that sentence in which he had said a little before, that God is a body, for I do not think that he was so unwise as to think that the nature of God is passable. Hear is a contradiction, namely to be bodily is to be passable, and God is bodily, which be the premises of a Syllogism, and if you add the conclusion, which ariseth of them, Ergo, God is passable, the falsehood of it will prove the one of them to be false likewise: now the mayor is most true, saith Austin, ergo, say I, the minor is false, and so consequently the one agreeth no better with the other than truth and falsehood, you will say then, debunt ergo mutare sententiam, it is true, but he changed it not for aught we know, but left this, and some other contrarieties behind him unretracted, yet was he still accounted a very learned man, Cyprian when he called for Tertullian, was wont to say, da magistrum, give me my master, Austin saith, acutus est, he is a quick and subtle disputer, and Erasmus, Inter Latinos Theologos multò omnium doctissimus Tertullianus, Tertullian was the learnedest by much, 
In praefat. oper. Hilaric,  of the Latin divines.  
Now, where our papist still goeth on, and tells us, after his absurd manner, that the jews tore the writings of the Evangelists with contrariety, and that great appearance thereof seems to be therein: here is but a seeming of appearance against the Evangelists, and therefore, I hope, he is well able to stop any jews mouth in that behalf, and to defend the writings of the Evangelists against seem of appearance: if he cannot do the like for the fathers and doctors, then hath he said nothing to purpose, but bred a suspicion in his reader, that he had rather the Evangelists should miscarry, than the Fathers, and this suspicion is yet increased, in that he accounteth the holy Scriptures without Churches, Fathers, and Counsels, to be the fountain of all Heresy and Atheism, for may not a man's fancy misled him in the fathers as well as the Scriptures, and suck poison out of the one, aswell as the other? I am sure Dioscorus crieth out in the Council of Chalcedon, Ego testimonia habeo sanctorum patrum Athanasijs, Gregorij, 
Action 1. Ibidem.  Cyrilli in multis locis, ego cum patribus eijcior, etc. I have the testimony of the holy fathers Athenasius, Gregory, Cyrill in many places, I am cast out with the Fathers etc. So Eutyches, Ego legi scripta beati Cyrilli, Athanasijs, 
Ibid. Action.  & sanctorum patrum. So Carosus, Ego secundum expositionem trecentorum decem & octo patrum sic credo, etc. I believe thus according to the testimony of three hundred and eighteen Fathers. Hear be Fathers and Counsels alleged by errand heretics as the grounds of their poison: but of the Scripture, 
Ad pompeium cont. epist. Steph. de peccac. merit & remiss. lib. 1. 12.  Cyprian saith, Si ad divinae traditionis caput & originem revertamur, cessat error humanus, If we return to the head and fountain of God's tradition, the error of man doth cease. And Austin, Scriptura sacra nec falli potest nec fallere, The holy Scripture can neither deceive nor be deceived. As for the Church he talks of, if he be straightly examined, he will tell you he means the Church of Rome, and so no Scripture, nor enarration of Scripture may go currant, but that which Rome will afford us, that's the Church which he takes to be, as he said a while ago, the sure rock and pillar of truth, 
De express. verbo Dei.  Hosius saith, Si quis habeat interpretationem ecclesiae Romanae de loco aliquo scripturae, etiansi nec sciat nec intelligat, an, & quomodo cum scripturae verbis conveniat, tamen habet ipsissimum verbum Dei, If any man have the interpretation of the Church of Rome of some place of scripture, although he neither know not understand, whether and how it doth agree with the words of the Scripture, yet he hath the very word of God. How like you this my masters? you need talk no more of Fathers and Counsels, no, nor of learning, nor wit neither; for the Church of Rome, whether it agree, or agree not with the words of the Scripture, will serve the turn, you may burn your books and go about other business, the Church of Rome will watch for you, but sirs, I pray you tell us? will your Church of Rome, when she hath given us an interpretation, stand to it like a post, and never alter? that would be known before we yield to this which you urge upon us. 
Nicho. Casanus.  No, we dare not promise you that, for we have a great man, one Nicholas Cusanus once a Cardinal in the Church of Rome, who hath entitled a book which he hath written in defence of the Church, thus, De authoritate ecclesiae, & conciliorum supra, & contra scripturam, of the authority of the Church, & Counsels above, & contrary to the Scripture. And in that book he hath set down, Praxis ecclesiae uno tempore interpretatur Scripturam uno modo, & alio tempore alio modo, nam intellectus currit cum praxi, etc. The practice of the Church interpreteth the Scriptures at one time one way, and at another time another way; for the understanding runneth with the practice. Marry then, fie upon you and upon your Church, our own fancy will prove as good an interpreter, as either you, or your Church.  
Now let us consider of his three differences between the errors of the Fathers, & those points of doctrine whereof we have disputed, I pray you look upon them, and you shall find the two first to be the same, and the third little differing from the other two: the Father's errors, saith he, were private opinions, that's the first, one doctors opinion, that's the next; rejected of the Church, that's the last. Now, if this word rejected, be no more but not received or allowed, for the Church never condemned every several error of the Fathers by public sentence or decree; then all three is but one, for one Doctors private opinion, includeth a non-allowance or approbation of the Church. Again, the foresaid points of Doctrine, (saith he) are set down as received and practised through the universal Church, that's the first; uniformly consented unto by many, that's the next; received and practised by the Church, that's the last; these three likewise, for aught may appear may go for one: and therefore this man delights rather in number than weight, and layeth his learning abroad, as wide and side as he can, to fray men rather, than to teach them.  
Howbeit, if we give him his differences to be as many as he would have them, what differences be they? Marry they be differences of errors from points of doctrine, and what be those points of Doctrine, true or false? Marry they be true, else the Church would not receive them and praise them: Why then you see this man laboureth to show differences between error and truth; which is no controversy, let him show those points of Doctrine to be true, and we will easily yield that they differ from error, but if they be errors and falsehoods in religion, as they be indeed, the consent of the Church, cannot help them to be truths. It is a fond conceit, to imagine that the Church receiveth & practiseth nothing that is erroneous, for if the Church cannot tread awry, why saith Chrysostome, 
In oper. imperf. in Math. hom: 49.  Ne ipsis quidem ecclesijs credendum est, nisi ea dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt scriptures, We are not believe the Churches themselves, unless they say and do those things which are agreeable to the scriptures. If an uniform consent of many cannot err, why saith Austin, Ad Paulum Apostolum, ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum tractatoribus provoco, 
Epist. 19, ad. jerom.  I appeal to the Apostle Paul, from all other learned men that think otherwise. If the universal Church can decree nothing but truth; why saith the same Austin, Ipsa plenaria concilia quae fiunt ex universo orb Christiano, 
De bapt. count Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3.  saepe priora posterioribus emendantur, Even of plenary Counsels which are gathered out of all Christendom, the former are mended by the latter. And Gregory Nazianzen, 
Ad procopium.  Concilia non minuunt mala, sed augent potius, Counsels do not diminish, but increase evils rather. As for the Church of Rome which our Papist takes for his universal Church, 
In Math. Can. 8.  S. Hilary giveth us a rule to cast her state by, saying, Ecclesiae, intra quas verbum Dei non vigilaverit, naufragae sunt, The Churches, in which the word of God doth not watch, have suffered shipwreck. Wherefore, if there be any grace in the Romish Church, let me council her, not to brag and vaunt that Christ hath prayed for Peter's faith, 
Luk. 22.32. Math. 16.8. Luk. 22.57.  and that she is built upon a rock that cannot be shaken: for Saint Peter's faith failed almost as soon as our Saviour had done praying, and therefore there is no doubt, but she may be shaken. This is Saint Paul's council too as well as mine, for thus he writes even to the Church of Rome, when she was in better case than she is now, by size ace and the dice, 
Rom. 11.20. etc.  [Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear, for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed he spare not thee, for if thou continue not in God's bounty, thou shalt also be cut off.]  
Thus much of his differences; now let us see how he doth apply them to the assoiling of our Protestants objections: [You may see the reason, (saith he) why the Doctors are to be rejected in the one,] that's in their private opinions, [and received in the other] points of doctrine, [and why we do not exclude them out of our Church, as you have excluded them out of yours.] You shall not need exclude them, for they neither are, nor ever were, or will be of your Church, and where you say [we have excluded them;] it is but a cast of your tongues office, which cannot be made good by any of your differences, we exclude their errors, not them, and these points, how generally soever they were received and practised, are no better than errors; Howbeit, (I beseech you) observe the temerity of this man, who talks thus hand over head of receiving Fathers, and yet some of these Fathers he nameth were schismatics and heretics, as Tertullian for example, who was not [homo ecclesiae, 
Contr. Heluid. Austin. de Haeres. ] as Jerome saith, and Saint Austin hath registered him for an Heretic and Schismatic too in his Book de haeresibus ad quod vult Deum; neither is Hilary, howsoever the Romish Church hath made him a Saint, over hastily to be received, 
De Trinitate libr. 10.  if he spoke as he thought, that Christ had Corpus ad patiendum, non naturam ad dolendum, A body to suffer, not nature to be grieved; 
Ibid. lib. 12. & alibi.  and knew not whether the holy Ghost were God proceeding from the Son, as well as the Father, and to be adored as well as promerited; 
Hierom.  Jerome against the Luciferians, saith, That Hilary did Segregare se cum suis vermitis, & nowm balneum aperire, Did separate himself with his wormlings, and open a new bath, and wrote Books against the Church, De haereticis rebaptizandis, Of rebaptizing Heretics.  
Observe further, that our Papist rejects Ireneus, Tertullian, Hilary and Cyprian, in their private opinions which he specifieth, and receiveth them in the other points in controversy, whereof they say nothing at all, neither hath he alleged any one of these Fathers to that purpose, but Tertullian only, who speaks not of these points after the popish fashion. Is not this a proper rejecting and receiving think ye? he rejecteth for a [private something,] and receiveth for an [universal nothing,] yet the more universal an error is, the more hurtful it is, and therefore till he prove these points to be true, as well as universal, he doth confirm, not answer our objections, yet were they never any of them so universal, as Cyprians rebaptisation, Austin's necessity of communicating, and some other errors of the Fathers. Thus have I taken away his answers, and unloosed his knots without cutting, and showed him withal that not one cause, but his hanging of his Faith and Religion upon the Doctor's authority, is desperate.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXIIII.  
PRo. All that you have hitherto said being admitted, yet cannot the Church of Rome, that now is, be the true Church of Christ, because it holdeth many other points of Doctrine directly contrary to the word of God; as the doctrine of justification by our own works, whereby you do attribute your salvation unto your own works, and to the merits of dead Saints, as if they had works sufficient for their own salvation, and a surplusage to be bestowed upon others, which you term works of supererogation, your doctrine of free-will, whereby you do attribute unto man an absolute power to do all good works, and thereby to merit heaven. And your doctrine of the keys, whereby you do attribute to the Pope and his Priest's power to forgive the sins both of the quick and dead, an easy way to heaven for such as have money and are disposed so to dispose it; is not this doctrine as contrary to the word of God, as light unto darkness? Pap. I will answer you herein as briefly as I can, desiring you first to 
a Which you seem not to understand yourself.  understand rightly the doctrine of the Church of Rome in these points, and then to judge indifferently. First therefore, concerning justification by works, we do hold with David, that the just man offendeth 
b Then must he do seven good works, else can he not be justified by works.  7. 
* Pr. 24, 16. It is Solomon, not David, nor doth Solomon say seven times a day, that is no addition to the text.  times a day; we do acknowledge also the death of Christ to be sufficient for the sins of the whole world; we do confess that every good and perfect gift cometh from above, and that our righteousness is as a polluted cloth, yet we do hold therewithal, that our good works, such as they are, being cleansed in the blood of Christ, are both 
c They may be acceptable, but meritorious they cannot be.  acceptable unto God, and meritorious, which we do ground upon the promise of our Saviour Christ, where he saith, he that giveth to one of these little ones a cup of cold water, shall not want his 
d What reward? temporal or eternal, or what?  reward, grace goeth before and draweth us unto good works, our will consenteth and worketh together with the grace of God, so that (as S. Austin saith) Tractat. 3. primi cap. johannis, God crowneth his own gifts in us, and giveth us grace for grace, this is our Doctrine of justification by works, wherein we do 
e Then nothing that is good in man, can merit.  ascribe whatsoever is good in man unto God as unto the Fountain: attributing nothing unto ourselves, 
f This tale will hardly agree within itself.  but the liberty of our will, whereby to apprehend the grace of God offered unto us, which free will also we do acknowledge to be the gift of God. Concerning the merits of dead Saints, we do hold that as God doth many times spare the wicked for the righteous that are living among them: and show mercy unto thousands in them that love him, and keep his commandments: even so he doth many times spare the living for the righteous sake, that are departed hence, 
g You are deceived, it doth not appear there.  as appeareth in the 2. of the Kings, Cap. 13. Where you shall find that the Children of Israel were delivered from the hand of King Aram, for Abraham, Isaak, and jacobs' sake, whereby 
h You must prove it better, before I can see it.  you see that the merits of dead Saints are available unto the living, whereupon we may conclude further, that if the children of Israel were spared for Abraham's sake who was dead, that it was lawful for the jews to pray unto God, that he would deliver them 
i That is, for the covenant sake made with Abraham, which being granted, you are at a stop.  for Abraham's sake, which being granted, why is it not as lawful for Christians to pray unto God to be merciful unto their sins, for Saint Peter and Saint Paul's sake? This Doctrine was believed and practised in the Church in Saint Austin's time, as appeareth Can. 40. Meditationum, where he prayeth to be delivered from all evil, by the prayers of the patriarchs, by the merits of the Prophets, etc. And more than this, the Church of Rome doth not attribute unto the merits of Saints.  

The Answer.  
Here our Protestant layeth three capital errors to the charge of the Church of Rome. First, justification by our own works, and the merits of dead Saints. Secondly, free-will to merit heaven. Thirdly, forgiving sins by the power of the keys, 
Mar. 2, 7, & Luk. 5, 21.  which the Scribes and pharisees, as blind as they were, knew and professed to be blasphemous, [herein I will answer you (saith our Papist) as briefly as I can,] yea, but when shall we have your brief answer?] Marry [first I must desire you (saith he) to understand rightly the doctrine of Rome in these points;] Well, but will you then be so good as [answer us as briefly as you can?] Yes marry will I, for I will say nothing at all, and that's as brief an answer as can be devised. Thus this man's pleasure is to delude us with expectation of an answer, which he (God wot) is not able to afford us, and therefore we must be content with [we hold,] and [we confess,] and what's that think you? Marry, [the just man offendeth daily, the death of Christ is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and our righteousness is as a polluted cloth,] which is sufficient to persuade any man that is not contentious, that we are not justified by our works, for that which is sufficient needeth not to be pieced and patched with a polluted clout of our righteousness, yea but our works justify not so long as they be polluted, but after they are cleansed in the blood of Christ, and so they are both acceptable and meritorious: Alas man, that's not the question whether they be acceptable and meritorious; but whether they justify, and the  fellow himself, telling us that our works are cleansed in the blood of Christ, tells us withal, that we are justified not by our works, 
Act. 15, 9, & Mar. 7, 21.  that want cleansing, but by faith in the blood of Christ, which cleanseth our works, and makes them acceptable; howbeit, all the world together in a heap will never be able to prove, that works polluted with an arrogant conceit or intention of justifying, can be possibly cleansed in the blood of Christ, his blood can no way else cleanse that which evacuateth his cross and passion, but by taking it away quite, and reforming the proud conceits of such heretics.  
And touching meritoriousness, the very name is odious to the servants of God; Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 4, 4. Luk. 17, 10.  [I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified,] and our Saviour hath taught us to say, we are unprofitable servants, and have done that which our duty bound us unto, when we have done all that is commanded, but what should I labour to take away merits, which this man himself groundeth upon the promise of Christ? 
Genes. 15, 6. Ro. 4, 3, 9, 13. Galat. 3.18, 22, etc.  I hope the promise of Christ was free, and must be laid hold upon by faith, not works, as Abraham did, for he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Again, this promise may be understood of temporal rewards, which the Lord bestoweth oftentimes upon such as neither be, nor ever shall be justified, beside a cup of cold water, 
Cap. 20, 23.  can merit no great matter, unless it be such water, as we read of in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Math. 10, 42. Mar. 9, 41.  add to this that our Saviour speaks of doing good to his Disciples, whom he sent to preach in the Cities of Israel, for so Mark expoundeth it. To be short, here is a reward spoken of, which we deny not, for he that freely promised it, is true of his word and promise that he made to a thousand generations, 
Psal. 105, 8.  yet here is nothing said of justification, I hope no man looks to be justified by giving a cup of cold water.  
But now (I trow) he comes to the point, [grace goeth before, (saith he) and draweth us unto good works, our will consenteth, and worketh together with the grace of God, and so God crowneth his own gifts in us, as Saint Austin saith:] Indeed Saint Austin saith, Coronat dona sua, non merita tua, He crowneth his own gifts, not thy merits; speaking of the Apostle Saint Paul. And again, Coronat in nobis Deus dona misericordiae suae, God crowneth in us the gifts of his own mercy. But what's this to [justification by works?] As for that which he addeth in the same tractate, that [we receive grace for grace;] he tells you that the first of these graces is faith, Accepimus de plenitudine eius, primò gratiam; rursum accepimus gratiam pro gratia, quam gratiam primò accepimus? fidem, in fide ambulantes, in gratia ambulamus, We have received of his fullness, first grace; again we have received grace for grace; what grace have we first received? faith, walking in faith, we walk in grace. Again, Si consecutus es istam gratiam fidei, eris justus ex fide, justus enim ex fide vivit, If thou hast obtained this grace of faith, thou shalt be just by faith, for the just shall live by faith. Moreover thus he expounds gratiam pro gratia, Ipsa fides gratia est, (saith he) Et vita aeterna gratia est pro gratia, Faith itself is grace, and eternal life is grace for grace. And again, De plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, de plenitudine misericordiae eius, de plenit adine bonitatis eius accepimus, quid? remissionem peccatoram ut iustificaromus ex fide, & in super quid? gratiam pro gratia, idest, prohac gratia, in qua ex fide vivimus, recepturi samas aliam, Of his fullness have we all received, of the fullness of his mercy, of the fullness of his goodness have we received: What? forgiveness of sins, that we may be justified by faith, and what more? grace for grace, that is to say, for this grace, in which we live by faith, we shall receive another. Now then, where our Papist talks of [grace going before,] let him tell us plainly without clouding whether it be faith or not: if it be faith; then he pleads our cause, and lets his own fall; if it be not faith, then let him entreat Saint Austin to hold his peace.  
Moreover, see (I pray you) how handsomely this man's dreams agree with the word of God: For whereas Saint Paul saith, 
Rom, 3, 24, & 11.6, Eph. 2, 8 9,  we are justified freely by grace, and not of works, he is not ashamed to talk of grace going before, which draweth us at length, to work together with the grace of God, as if the grace of God in Christ jesus, were not able to justify us without the assistance of our works, or as if the Apostle did not evidently exclude works, when he saith in one place, we are freely justified, and in another, if by grace, not of works, else were grace no grace. Besides this the same Apostle saith, that if Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but no man, 
Rom. 4, 2. Rom. 4, 2. & 3 27, Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4, 5. etc. Rom. 4, 4. Rom. 11.35. De Rom. pont. lib. 3. cap. 23, & Aurithes. 2 cont. Chytraeum.  no not Abraham himself, hath any thing wherein to rejoice with God. Ergo, no man living is justified, or ever was or shallbe justified by works. No, no [faith is accounted for righteousness to him that worketh not, saith Saint Paul,] he that worketh hath his wages, neither by faith nor by favour, but by debt, and who is he that hath given, or can give to God first, and he shall be recompensed?  
A man would think such evident testimonies as these be, should be past the reach of all wrangling; Yet Bellarmine tells us, that Abraham's works, which Paul speaks of, proceeded from nature without either faith or grace, 
Cap. 12.3. & cap. 15, 6. Cap. 11.8. & Act. 7.2. etc.  as if Paul had spoken of Socrates, or Aristides, not of Abraham the Father of the faithful; yet I am sure he had the righteousness of faith before he was called Abraham, as appeareth in Genesis, and the Author to the Hebrews testifieth, that he had faith before he went out of Chalde, to dwell in Charran. Now (I beseech you) must we needs think, that Paul speaks of such works as Abram wrought in Mesopotamia, when he and his Father Terah served strange Gods, 
Josh. 24.  not of such as Abraham wrought afterward, when he was called away from his Father's house, kindred, and country?  
Moreover, the same jesuite tells us, that there is a second kind of works, which proceed from faith and God's grace, and those works do but disponere ad reconciliationem cum Deo, & remissionem peccatorum. Dispose us to reconciliation with God, and remission of sins. But what doth faith and God's grace in the mean time? do they still bring forth good works, and good works a disposition, and so never actually reconcile us? Marry look the Tridentine council for your answer, Ideò gratis iustificatur homo, quia nec fides nec: opera, iqu● justificationem praecedunt, ipsam merentur, nimirum ex justitia quasi eiusmodi operibus esset debita justificatio, A man is therefore freely justified, because neither faith nor works which go before justification do deserve it, to wit, of right, as if justification were due to such works. Well said, hold you to that, and go no further, for we teach not, that faith properly justifieth, but layeth hold upon Christ, that justifieth the ungodly, & makes them blessed by imputation of his righteousness without works, as Paul teacheth out of David, 
Rom. 4, 5, 6.  but here followeth a [tamen,] that mars all, Fatemur tamen haec opera, quatenus ex fide & adiutorio divino proficiscuntur, divina esse opera, & suo modo mereri, hoc est, impe●rare peccatorum remissionem, Yet we confess that these works, as they proceed from faith and the help of God are divine, and do merit after their manner, that is to say, obtain remission of sins. But (I beseech you) tell us, how did this man speak of them before? did he not understand them as proceeding from faith and God's grace, when he said, Haec apera non dicimus esse meritoria, We do not say that these works are meritorious. And out of Trent Council, Ideò gratis iustificatur homo, quia nec fides, nec opera merentur justificationem quasi eiusmodi operibus esset debita, A man is therefore freely justified, because neither faith, nor works which go before justification do deserve it, to wit, of right, as if justification were due to such works. Thus wily beguiles himself, for though the truth stick in his teeth; yet all his tamen, and quasies, and quatenusses cannot smother it. Wherefore let those men talk of grace, as holily as they lift, yet when they attribute their justification to their works of the law, either in part or in whole; they abrogate the grace of God, either in part or in whole, and so either diminish or disannul the glory of the cross of Christ. Well, saith Austin, Detur totum Deo, tutiores vivimus si totum Deo demus, 
Galat. 2, 21. De bono. persever. cap. 13.  non autem nos illi ex part, & nobis ex part commuttimus, Let us give all to God, we live more safe if we give all to God, and not if we commit ourselves to him in part, and in part to ourselves. And so Bellarmine confesseth, 
De justificat. lib. 5, Cap: 7.  when the fit is over; for thus he writes, Propteer incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate repanere. Because of the weakness of our own righteousness, and danger of falling into vain glory, it is the safest way for us to repose our whole trust in the mercy and favour of God also.  
Touching free-will, or liberty of will, we shall speak of it anon in his order and place, in the mean time see, I pray you, how your Papist doth part stakes with God, we attribute nothing to ourselves, (saith he) but the liberty of our will. And again, [we acknowledge our free-will to be the gift of God,] so free-will is attributed to God, and to ourselves too. Now let him tell us whether this gift come by nature or by grace, if by nature, than grace is excluded, unless ye confound nature and grace with the Pelagians: if by grace; then our will must not work together with the grace, as he said before, but follow after grace, as an effect and fruit of regeneration, but to leave this till anon, we are now come, from our own merits, to the merits of dead Saints, which laboured so hard in their life time, that they earned heaven for themselves, and left a surplusage to help others, which is clean contrary to the law of works, which saith, do this and thou shalt live; 
Rom. 3.27.  and not let another do it, and thou shalt live: we must either be saved by the law that saith, Do this, or by the Gospel that saith, 
Rom. 10.5, 6, 7, etc.  Believe this, Nihil est tertium, There is no third: No is? doth not the Lord spare the wicked for the righteous sake, that live among them? yes that he doth, but he doth not save, one for another's sake; temporal bleshngs, and eternal salvation are not both of one weight, but what of that? marry even so God doth many times spare the living for the righteous sake that are departed hence. This fellow hath forgotten what he should prove, for the question is not whether the Lord doth temporally spare the living for the dead sake, but whether the merits of dead Saints can save them from hell, and bring them to heaven; this is a far greater matter, 
2. Reg. 13.  than the deliverance of the Children of Israel from the hands of the King of Aram, unless the King of Aram were the Devil of hell: Howbeit, 
Rom. 11.28,  there is another place in the new Testament, that fits his turn better, where it is said, 
Rom. 11.28. Lib. 2, 13.  that the jews were beloved for the Father's sakes, yet notwithstanding both this place, and that other of the Kings, is not to be understood of the Father's merits, whereof Abraham himself had none to spare, 
Rom. 4, 2.  but of the free promise and covenant made unto the Fathers, for so it is written expressly to the Romans, 
Rom. cap. 11.27. Cap. 13.23.  and more expressly in the second of Kings, though your Papist here hath no list to see it, and therefore where he inferreth that a man may as well pray to God to be merciful to his sins for Saint Peter and Saint Paul's sake, he over-reacheth as tired Hackneys use to do, unless he can show, that God made the like covenant with Peter and Paul, that he made with the Fathers.  
Yea, but there be other places, where not only the covenant is remembered, but also the justice and holiness of the Fathers and patriarchs, as for example in the Psalms, [Lord, 
Psal. 132.1:  remember David with all his humility or affliction.] This is one of Bellarmine's quotations, more easily answered than quoted, 
De sanct. beattit. lib. 18. cap. 19 2. Sam. 6. & 1. Cron. 13 & 15.  for this is a Psalm appointed to be sung in David's life time when the Ark was brought from Baalath in Kiriathiarim, or, from the house of Obed Edom; and whereas the same man allegeth another place out of the Kings, where it is said, that for David's sake, the Lord gave King Abijam a light in jerusalem, 
1. Reg. 15.4, 5  that is, a Son to reign after him, because David did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. I answer, that this was a condition annexed unto the covenant made with David and his posterity, 
1. Cron. 28.7.  as David himself giveth it out again to Solomon his Son.  
Touching Austin's Books of Meditations, I will meditate upon the matter before I admit it for Canonical; yet me thinks craving mercy for our sins at God's hand for Peter and Paul's sake, and attributing salvation and deliverance from all evil to the merits of dead men, be they patriarchs, or be they Apostles, or Prophets, or whosoever else living or dead, being so derogatory to the passion and obedience of the Son of God, should be forborn for very shame, if the fear of God cannot bridle us. 
De Sanctor: beat. lib. 1. ca 17.  Bellarmine a Captain Papist sets down this for a general rule; Sancti non sunt immediati intercessores nostri apud Deum, sed quicquid à Deo nobis impetrant, per Christum impetrant, Saints are not immediate intercessors for us with God, but whatsoever they obtain of God for us, they obtain it by Christ. I hope per Christum, by Christ, doth include Christi merita, Christ's merits, for so the same popish Doctor confesseth, willing us to note three several persons in our prayers, unam ipsiùs Dei, à quo petimus; alteram Christi, per cuius meritum petimus; tertiam eius qui petit, One of God himself; the second of Christ through whose merit we ask; the third his that asketh. And so concluding, that neither the first, nor the second may be attributed to dead Saints: and therefore to crave mercy, not for Christ's sake, but for Peter and Paul's sake, and to be delivered from all evil, not by the merits and mediation of Christ, but by the merits of the Prophets, or the patriarchs, or whosoever else dead or alive, is not allowed by his own Doctors.  
Yea, but the last words of that Chapter, De Sanctorum beatitudine, teach you, that we mention Saints in our prayers after this form, Concede nobis Deus, intercessione huius sancti, tale beneficium per Christum dominum nostrum, Grant us O God, by the merit of such a Saint, such a benefit through Christ our Lord. I grant you that this is set down as a pattern of Catholic prayer, wherein by intercession, he understandeth not only the prayers, but also the merits of dead Saints, for so we learn before in the same Chapter, in these words, Sancte Petre da mihi hoc & illud tuis precibus & meritis, Saint Peter give me this or that, by thy prayers and merits: Also per Christum, is as much to say, as per Christi preces & merita, by Christ's prayers and merits, as I showed before. Now show us how you can tell, that either hic sanctus, or haec sancta hath or will pray, or pawn their merits for you? and if you know it not; what makes you so bold, as to speak more to God, than you know to be true? Again, the living know not, whether the merits of these or those Saints be drawn dry, for they cannot supererrogate more than they have, 
Bellar. de purge. lib. 2. cap. 2▪  have still, and give still, they cannot without a new supply, and supply they can have none after this life: so likewise the dead know not whether their prayers and merits shall prevail, unless they knew who be chosen, who be reprobates, that cannot be known, because God hath sealed it, as Paul saith, the foundation of God of remaineth sure, 
2. Tim. 2, 19  and hath this seal, the Lord knoweth who are his, etc. Wherefore either the Saints pray, and bestow their merits at all adventure without faith, or assurance of God's acceptance, which Peter Lombard likes not of: 
Lib. 4, distinct. 45.  or else this popish doctrine, is but a dream of a dry Summer. Thirdly, it would be known, when these superfluous works are made acceptable to God? Is it as soon as the breath is out of the Saints mouth, or before, or else a week, or a month, or a year after, or when else? if before, or presently after his death, as they must either begin then or never, then Christ hath done that which belongeth to him already, so as we need not now conclude our prayers with per Christum dominum nostrum. Last of all, I would know whether any of these Saints, that had so many spare works, did themselves in their time, pray after Bellarmine's popish form? did they pray that other Saints, that were dead before them, would procure them this or that benefit, which they had need of? either they knew their own store, or they knew it not; if they knew it, they were much to blame to join prayer with the Church after Bellarmine's pattern, and so to lavish needlessly the treasure of the Church, whereas they might have prayed, as never any durst pray, Lord, grant me this or that, for my own merit's sake; if they knew it not, and so continued all their life time, how come we to know it when they are dead? Iwis, it is not the Pope's Canonization that can stop this gap, for it cannot be showed that ever Pope presumed to canonize any one Saint before the time of Charles the great, and if there had been any certain rule to dub Saints by in Austin's time, he would never have said, Multorum corpora honorantur in terris, quorum animae torquentur in Gehenna, Many men's bodies are honoured in earth, whose souls are tortured in hell. Wherefore it behooves our good Catholics to look better about them, before they put themselves and their prayers to so dangerous a venture.  
Now in conclusion, let me entreat you to note further, how these men open their own shame there, where they would feign hide it, for when Bellarmine knew, that the Church of Rome prayed to the Virgin Marie, and the Apostles not as secondary mediators, but principals: thus he slubbers up the matter, as though it were but a trifle, 
De Sanct. beat. lib. 1. ca 17  Non agimus de verbis, saith he, sed de sensu verborum; nam quantum adverba licet dicere, S. Petre miserere met, salva me, aperi mihi aditum coeli, etc. dummodo intelligamus salva me, & miserere mei orando pro me, da mihi hoc & illud tuis praecibus & meritis, We deal not about the words, but about the sense of the words; if we respect the words, it is lawful to say, Saint Peter have mercy upon me, save me, open me the gate of heaven, so that we understand, save me, and have mercy upon me, by praying for me, and give me this and that by the prayers and merits. As if he should say, Be sure ye name Peter, or the Virgin Marie, or the Saints to whom ye pray, else all is marred, but God the Father, 
1. Tim. 2, 5.  and Christ his son, the only mediator between God and man: You may understand them as accidental implements, that may adesse & abbess sine interitu subiecti. You need not care greatly for naming them, for the holy Virgin God's mother, and Peter, and Paul, and the rest of God's friends, will excuse the matter. Thus these men can remember dead Saints, and let God, and his Christ go, as though they counted it but a small matter to forget God, 
Psa. 9.17. Rom. 10, 9.10.  and knew not that we must confess the Lord jesus with our mouths, as well as believe in him in our hearts. Howbeit, they that forget the mediation of Christ in their Mass-book, 
Durand. lib. 4. part 2. vide Sect. 8.  where they pray for the acceptation of his body and blood, and that God would look upon them, propitio ac sereno vultu, (for they cannot pray pro Christo, and per Christum both at once) will hardly remember it when they are let lose, to wander in the wilderness of Bellarmine's Intelligamus.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXV. Free-will.  
COncerning Frée-will, we do say with Saint james, that every good and perfect gift cometh from above, and with Saint Paul, Deus operatur in nobis & velle & perficere: and we must not deny that which our Saviour Christ hath affirmed, Nemo venit ad me nisi pater meus traxerit eum, No man cometh unto me, unless my Father shall draw him: yet we do say with Saint Austin, that this 
a yet Austin elsewhere makes it to be more, than persuading, look the answer.  drowsing, is as the pleasant pasture draweth the sheep, and not a violent drawing, as a Bear drawn to the stake, man can do no good works except he be drawn, unless he be inspired from above, but being 
b No marvel, for than we are regenerate and justified already, yet have we then no freedom to refuse.  so drawn and inspired, it is then in the election of man's frée-will, either to be obedient thereunto, or else to refuse the same, and to quench the spirit as Saint Paul calleth it, Diabolus dat consilium, saith S. Austin, sed Deo auxiliante nostrum est eligere, vel repudiare quod suggerit, Homil. 12. If there be no power in man to repent, or to do good works, 
c Because God by that means worketh repentance in us. 2. Tim. 2: 25.  how is it that the Scriptures do so often exhort us to repentance, newness of life, and good works, and threaten grievous punishments to those that will not do that which (as you say) they 
d The fault is in themselves, not in God. This is the very objection of the Pelagians answered by Saint Austin lib. de great. & lib. arbitr. cap. 16.  cannot do? For your full satisfaction herein, read Saint Austin, sermone 7. de verbis Apostoli, Irenaeus libro 4. cap. 72. Saint Hilary upon 118. Psal. Epiphanius Tom. 1. Haeres. 16.  

The Answer.  
ABsolute [free-will] either to good or evil is hardly to be found upon the earth, yet our papist here makes as though he had found it, and might hold it by Saint Austin, though Saint james and Saint Paul say no, howbeit man's [free-will] may beg his bread well enough, if it have no better friends than Saint Austin, for where that good father in his tractates upon john, 
Tract. 26.  saith that the father draweth us unto Christ, as a green bough draweth a sheep: you must understand that this green bough resembleth our faith, as our Saviour expoundeth it, 
joh. 6.64. etc. Ad simplician. lib. 1. quaest. 2.  and Saint Austin else where is bold to say, Quis habet in potestate sua, ut sua mens tali viso tangatur, quid voluntas moveatur ad fidem. Who hath it in his own power, that his mind might be touched with such a sight, whereby his will may be moved unto faith. Again, you must presuppose that the sheep is hungry, and is not afraid of him that holdeth & offereth that bough, otherwise he may hold it till his arms ache: 
Matth, 5.6. 1. john 4.18. Ephes. 3.12.  and even so it fareth with the sheep of Christ, for they are first brought to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and to have the love of God which casteth out fear, before they will regard the pleasant pasture that is offered unto them, and therefore the same father else where saith, that the Lord draweth men, 
De correct. & gratia ad Valantin. cap. 14. Ibid. cap. 2.  Suis voluntatibus, sed quas ipse operatus est, By their wills, but yet such as himself hath wrought in them. And again, Ideo volunt, quia Deus operatur ut sic velint, Therefore they will, because God worketh that they will say so. Besides this, the sheep is naturally drawn to feed upon a green bough when she is hungry, but our hunger after righteousness is not natural, but God's extraordinary and supernatural blessing, 
Matth. 5.6.  which may not be confounded with nature, unless we will shake hands with Pelagius the heretic; and yet if you consider of that general flying power to choose or refuse good or evil, which the papists call grace, for fear of Pelagianisme: you shall hardly discern it from nature, and therefore well saith Saint Austin against Pelagius, and Celestius, and the papists their successors, 
Lib. 1. cap. 10.  Non satis est confiteri qualemcunque gratiam, sed illam qua per sua deamur, qua trahamur, & qua detur ipsum bonum, It is not enough to confess any kind of grace, but that by which we are persuaded, by which we are drawn, and by which the good itself is given.  
Touching the place in Austin's Homilies; I answer in a word that [eligere] and [repudiare consililum diaboli] is [nostrum] the one by nature, 
Ephes. cap. 2.23.  the other by grace: by nature we are the children of wrath, and walk after the counsel of the devil, but by grace we have some freedom from that captivity, yet would I wish you to have a more particular regard of this allegation: man saith your papist can do no good work except he be drawn, that's true, and inspired from above, that's true to, and what then? marry then after this drawing and inspiring, it is in the election of man's free will either to obey or refuse, and how is this proved? marry, you shall hear it proved out of Austin's Homilies, Diabolus dat consilium, 
Homil. 12.  sed Deo auxiliante, nostrum ect eligere vel repudiare quod suggerit, The devil giveth us counsel, but it is in our power, the Lord assisting us, to choose or refuse that which he suggesteth. Is not this a worthy proof? the question being of God's work in us, 
Cap. 3.  he answereth that the devil doth counsel us, and we by the freedom of our wills, may either [eligere or repudiare quod suggerit] what? dare you accuse Saint Austin of so heinous a crime? they be Austin's very words. But by your leave, you must prove that before it will be believed, I am sure Saint Austin would not say that we may choose, that which the devil enticeth us unto, by the help of God, indeed the regenerate man may [repudiare consilium diaboli] by the help of God, but I am sure God will not help him to yield to his suggestions. The child of God that's borne again hath free-will in some measure, but to good, not to evil, and so have the wicked, but to evil and not to good, and both their wills are therefore free, because neither the one is constrained to that which is good, nor the other to that which is evil, but far was it from Saint Austin's thought, that God should afford any help to choose the counsels and suggestions of the devil.  
As for quenching the spirit, 
1. Thes. 5.19.  which Saint Paul somewhere speaks of, I answer that the Greek word signifieth keeping under, or shaking, as well as extinguishing, & so the word quenching, is sometime taken in our English tongue: secondly, the same Apostle saith else where, 
Eph. 4.30.  grieve not the spirit, which may well be interpreted, slake not, or quench not, or keep not down the power of the spirit, yet it followeth presently, by whom ye are sealed to the day of redemption. But let it signify (utter extinguishing and putting out) in this place to the Thessalonians, yet me thinks he should know what Beza answereth in his Annotations, 
Annot. in. Thes. epist. 1.5.19.  where this objection is extinguished, thus he objecteth. Si in electis nunque extinguitur, frustrà hoc praecipitur, If it be never quenched in the elect, this precept is given in vain. Then he answereth, Imo verò ideo non extinguitur in electis, quoniam eum fovent, ut autem foveant, istis exhortationibus adducuntur, Yea rather therefore it is not extinguished in the elect, because they cherish it, and that they do cherish, they are provoked by these exhortations. And hereof it cometh that Saint Paul addeth immediately in the very next verse, despise not prophesying, that is, 
Vers. 20.  give heed to God's holy word preached and opened unto you, whereby this fire of the spirit was first kindled, and must still be kept burning in your hearts; moreover it may be considered, that the Prophet David, 
Psal. 51.10, 11, 12.  even in the same verse where he calleth upon God to create in him a new heart, addeth further, and renew a right spirit with in me, & where he saith, cast me not away from thy presence, than he saith also, take not thy holy spirit from me, & he had not so soon said, restore to me the joy of thy salvation, but he showeth again, that all was not lost, saying, establish me with thy free spirit. And so we find the creating he speaketh of, to be a renewing, the not casting of him away, to be the not taking of God's holy spirit from him, and lastly restoring to be establishing.  
One dusty reason yet remaineth, which our papist shakes out of the bottom of his bag, in these words, if there be no power in man to repent, or to do good works, why doth the Scripture exhort us to repentance, news of life, and good works, and threaten to punish us for not doing that we cannot do? 
2. Tim: 2.25  do you ask why? marry Paul tells you why, saying, instruct them that be contrary minded, proving if God at any time will give them Repentance, that so they may come to amendment out of the snare of the devil, where that we learn clearly that God by the means of the Scripture draweth us to repentance and amendment of life. Repentance and remission of sins was given freely to Israel, 
Act. 5.31 Act: 11.18  likewise God granted repentance to the Gentiles; if we at this day be neither jews nor Gentiles, or if God work not in these days, as he did in those: then may we brag of our freedom and manumission, if not, then are they over-saucy that honour themselves with the spoils of God.  
And touching Gods threatenings for not doing that we have no ability to perform, who but a blind papist can or will therefore charge God with injustice, considering that he gave us ability in the loins of Adam, though now by his fall, 
john 15.5  and ours in him, we have lost it. Our Saviour when he saith, without me ye can do nothing, doth he therefore leave off exhorting, convincing, and threatening? or doth S. Paul having once testified that it is not in him that willeth, 
Rom 9.16.  nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy; never after exhort men to will and to run aright, nor threaten them, if they happen to will and to run amiss? when Christ saith, 
Mark. 1.15  repent and believe the Gospel, must we needs conclude against the plain evidence of God's word, that repentance and faith, 
Phil: 1.29. & hebr: 12: 2 Ad simplicianum lib. 1. quest. 2.  are not the gifts of God, but the homespun fruit of our own wills? wherefore I will conclude this point with Saint Austin, whom our Papist here seemeth to follow as his special guide, Quis potest rectè vivere ac justè operari, nisi justificatus ex fide? quis potest crederenisi aliqua vocatione, hoc est, aliqua rerum testificatione tangatur? Quis habet inpotestate sua, ut sua meus tali visu tangatur, quo voluntas moveatur adfidem? Who can believe except he be touched with some calling, that is to say, some testification of the things, who hath it in own power that his mind should be touched with such a sight, 
Despir. & litter. Cap. 34.  whereby it may be moved to faith? Again, Cur hnic ita suadeatur, ut persuadeatur, illi autem non ita: duo sola occurrunt quae mihi placeat respondere, o altitudo divitiarum, 
Rom: 11.33 Rom: 9.14.  & nunquid iniquitas est apud deum? cui ista responsio displicet, quaerat doctiores sed caveat presumptores. Why this man is so instructed that he is persuaded, but another is not so, I have found two only answers that do please me: O the depth of the riches, and is there injustice with God? he that is not pleased with this answer, let him seek him learneder instructors, but withal let him take heed he find them not presumptuous. Now let your Papist tell Saint Austin, that the one was persuaded, the other not, because it is in man's free-will either to obey or refuse, for so he may prove a presumptuous foot like his fellows, but better learned than Saint Austin will he never be.  
Yet for all this, we must read Saint Austin for our full satisfaction, as if Saint Austin were a patron of such licentiousness, or as if a man living or dead, by his own authority could fully satisfy any Christian conscience, yet S. Paul in that place which Austin expounds, 
Ephe: 3.13.  writes to regenerate men that had their wills freed by the mercy of God, & were to go on by the same mercy to a further perfection. Austin saith, Quod peto à vobis, rogo det vobis, 
De verbis Apost. serm. 7.  That which I require of you, I desire for you. And again, Hoc à Deo petit, quod ab hominibus exigit, This he desireth of God, which he requireth of men. And again, Det vobis, inquit, non enim habetis, nisi det vobis, Let him give you (saith he) for you have it not, unless he give it you. Yea but what say you to Irenaeus, Hilary, and Epiphanius, do not they satisfy you? No, nor any man else that is not a Pelagian heretic, Irenaeus saith plainly, 
Lib. 4. cap. 72.  Omnes eiusdem sunt naturae, & potentes retinere & operari bonum, & potentes rursum amittere id, & non facere, All men are of the same nature, and able to retain and to work that which is good, and able again to lose it, and not to do it. Again, Liberae sententiae ab initio est homo, est liberae sententiae est Deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est, Man had free-will from the beginning, and God hath free-will, according to whose similitude he was made. To be short, the same Father, when he saith, In fide liberum & suae potestatis arbitrium hommi seruavit Dominus, God hath reserved to man in faith, a will free and in his own power. What doth he else but place faith in the free will and power of man, than which nothing can be more contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, 
Hilar. in psal. 118.  neither is the testimony of Hilary and Epiphanius of much better regard, for when the one saith, Est à nobis cum oramus exordium, The beginning is from ourselves when we pray. 
Idem. in psal. 2.  Again, unicuique nostrum libertatem vitae sensumque permisit, He hath granted to every of us liberty of life and sense. And again, Voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet, ut velit Deus incipienti crementum dare. This our will ought to have proper of itself, that when it beginneth, God would give increase. And the other, 
Epiph. heres. 16.  Possumus peccare & non peccare, It is in our power to sin, and not to sin. And again, Circa hominem est bona operari, aut malas res appetere: It it in man's power to do good, or to desire evil things. I see no inkling of any grace, but only of the natural force and power of man's will, I will not charge these ancient fathers with all that may be gathered out of their writings, but this I may say, under benedicite, that such sayings as these, were the first grounds and foundations of the Pelagian heresy, 
August: contra julianum Pelag. lib. 1. ca 2.  Pelagianis nondùm litigantibus securius loquebantur, saith Austin, the Fathres spoke with less circumspection, before they were cumbered with Pelagianisme.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXI. The doctrine of the keys.  
AS touching this point of doctrine, the church of Rome doth teach none 
a But by your leave, you are deceived.  other thing, then that which our Saviour Christ doth in the 16. of S Matthews Gospel in plain and express words, where he saith unto S. Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven: and in the 20. of S. john's Gospel, where he saith to all his disciples, Whosoevers sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoevers sins ye retain, they are retained: so that you see the literal sense is for us, and the question between us, is of the right interpretation and true meaning of the words; you 
b We do so, for the keys of discipline are given, Matth. 18.18.  do interpret the binding and losing here mentioned, to be the preaching of the word of God, whereby sins are forgiven and loosed to the penitent hearers, and retained unto the impenitent and unbelievers: and we do say, that by these words our Saviour did give authority and commission unto his disciples and their successors to forgive sins, not by their own power and authority, but by the power and authority of him, whose commissioners they be, wherein we do attribute no more unto the commissioners in the forgiving of sins, than we do unto a servant that giveth possession of his master's land by virtue of a letter of attorney, who although he have himself no interest in the land at all, yet hath he full power to convey his master's interest therein to 
c He knows to whom, so doth not your popish priest.  whosoever his pleasure is to have the same conveyed; it pleased God to make water an instrument in the forgiving of sins in the Sacrament of Baptism: and in the 
d We know no such sacrament, this must go among other your forgeries.  sacrament of penance, to make man an instrument, unto whom we do attribute no more (as touching the forgiveness of sins, in the one sacrament, than you do unto water in the other: man (who cannot see the heart) giveth remission to all that pretend to be penitent and contrite: but God who seethe the heart, 
e And would give it, though your newfound sacrament had never been forged.  giveth remission (by the ministry of man) to those only that are truly penitent and contrite: And thus much for the true understanding of the question between us. Now forasmuch as (the literal sense being wholly for us,) the controversy doth consist only in the right interpretation; let us compare together your interpretation and ours, that we may the better discern whether of them is most like to be true: 
f We build our faith upon no man's opinion, old or young, do you as best beseems your profession.  you do build your faith herein upon the opinion of Luther or Caluine, or perhaps upon the conceit of your own brain; and we upon the authority of the 
g Here is a goodly vaunt, if the matter could be so carried away with big words, this fellow would do well enough.  ancient fathers, and continual practice of the universal church through the whole world, continued from the Apostles, and remaining even to this day. To conclude, for the utter overthrow of your interpretation, thus I do argue against it; If Christ did give this authority of binding and losing unto his disciples only and to their successors (as I think you will not deny it) then cannot the preaching of the word be that binding and losing given only to the disciples and their successors, because 
h As though a learned lay man had authority to preach the word.  a learned lay man, who is none of the disciples successors, may bind and loose in that sense that you do interpret, and open and shut the kingdom of heaven, as well as an 
i We allow no such ministers.  ignorant and unlearned minister: Other doctrine than this, as touching the forgiving or retaining of sins, the church of Rome teacheth not, saving that whereas in the sacrament of Penance, temporal penance is enjoined; we do hold that the 
k Who gave that power to the Pope? I am sure it is more than ever Peter had, or practised or bequeathed to his successors, this is not to be found either in S. Matthew or S. john.  Pope hath power to release, altar, or mitigate the same, either in the life of the party, or, if the party fortune to die before the performance of his penance, to pardon the same after his death. For your full satisfaction herein, I 
l And I you to the answer.  will refer you to a learned discourse thereof written in the english tongue by our country man Cardinal Allen.  

The Answer.  
THe Keys now remain to be scoured from popish rust, and to this purpose we may consider that Saint Peter's keys are first taken in hand, 
Math: 16.19. john 20.23. Bellar. de pontiff.  and then those keys that were committed by our Saviour to the Apostles; yet if you will believe Bellarmine, the first place out of Matthew, doth but promise that Saint Peter should be a keykeeper (I will give the etc. and the other out of john, 
Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2.  giveth the Apostles no more but Potestatem ordinis ad remittenda peccata, Power of order to remit sins. Thus must your papist either be at odds with Bellarmine, or else give claves jurisdictionis, the keys of jurisdiction, only to Peter and his successors, and to the rest nothing but potestatem ordinis, and so consequently he must find other places besides these, or else his keys will neither open nor shut as he would have them. Wherefore let him consult with Bellarmine his master, before he presume over far upon the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and he will tell him that the keys both of order and jurisdiction were given to Peter in these words, 
john 21.15. etc. john 20.21. etc.  Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheep: and to the other Apostles in these, as my father sent me, so send I you, and in these words to receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained, and here note by the way, how solemnly Father Bellarmine tells us that our Saviour in these two places gave Summam potestatem; Chief power to all his Apostles, Sed cum quadam subiectione ad Petrum, But with a kind of subjection to Peter. As if [summa potestas] and [subiectio] could possibly agree together, or as if Peter himself received that same high power among the rest, used it, Cum quadam subiectione ad se ipsum, with a kind of subjection to himself. Such ridiculous absurdities do men run headlong into, when they are over hastily carried away with their own dreams.  
But go too, let us entreat the Cardinal to bear with his friend, and to procure him a dispensation to understand these two places, which he citeth, after his own liking; what hath he than to say? Marry than I say, our sense is more literal than yours, well, and what saith he else? Nay we say, that our Saviour by these words, doth give authority and commission to his disciples and their successors to forgive sins, not by their own power and authority, but by the power and authority of him whose commissioners they be. Yea, but have they commission to forgive sins wheresoever they find it, or else in them only that God is willing to forgive? Their commission I trow, is not universal to all without discretion, and to dream who it is that God purposeth to show mercy unto, is beyond the capacity of any man living, Papist to Protestant; he that hath a letter of Attorney from his master to give possession of, and knoweth the man to whom he is commanded to convey his master's interest, 
Rom. 9.18.  but our master hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, neither may your popist Priest presume that he knoweth the mind of the Lord, 
Rom. 11.33.34.  and can find out his ways and judgements which be insearchable, and so this silly papist here confesseth, when he saith, that man giveth remission to pretended penitents, which God who seethe their hearts, doth not ratify: now then confer this power thus exercised hand over head to good and bad, as papists use it, with our preaching or publishing remission to penitent sinners, and then judge whether is most like to be the better.  
And because he brags of the literrall sense, that it makes wholly for him, let him tell me how the general words of the Scripture, whatsoever thou shalt bind, whatsoever thou shalt lose, whosoever sins ye remit, and whosoevers sins ye retain, can be literally restrained to such only as be truly penitent? if this cannot be done without a quatefication, let him not brag that his sense is more literal than ours, we preach remission to all that be penitent, and so open unto them the kingdom of heaven; to the impenitent, 
Rom. 2.8.  and such as contentiously disobey the truth, we denounce indignation and wrath, 
Esay. 5.14.  and so shut heaven, & open hell wide, that their glory, their multitude, & pomp may descend into it, neither can this sense seem strange to such as be conversant in the writings of the Fathers, Thus saith Tertullian, 
Contr. Martion lib. 4. Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. De Cain & Abel lib. 2. cap. 4. In Oper. imperf. in Mat. cap. 23.  Quam clavem habebant legis doctores, nisi interpretationem legis, What keys had the doctors of the law, but the interpretation of the law. Thus Jerome, Soluunt Apostoli sermone Dei & testimonijs scripturarum, & exhortatione virtutum. The Apostles do lose, by the word of God, and testimonies of the Scriptures, and exhortation unto virtues. Thus Ambrose, Remittuntur peccata per verbum Dei, cuius levites est interpres, Sins are remitted by the word of God, of which the minister is interpreter. Thus Chrysostome, Clavicularij sunt sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum docendi & interpretandi scripturas, The key-keepers are the Priests, unto whom the word of teaching and interpreting the Scriptures is committed.  
But it may be our papist, by comparison of his interpretation and ours will find out the truth, thus he writes, you build your faith upon the opinion of Luther, or Caluine, or the conceit of your own brain, and we upon the authority of the ancient fathers, and continual practice of the universal Church through the whole world continued from the Apostles, and remaining to this day. Hear is a tale told with all circumstances pressed down, and running over, for he might have left out either [universal Church,] or, through the whole world; either continued, or continual practice, or remaining to this day: if he had not purposed to dazzle us with empty words, but is this the comparison he cracks of? Now surely we must needs be hard hearted that cannot yield to such comparisons, can you prove that we build our faith upon Luther, or Caluine, or our own brain? or do you compare together our faith and yours, when you compare the opinion and conceit of Luther or Caluine, with the authority of the ancient Fathers? Alas good Papist, you cannot but know that our faith is no man's conceit or opinion, and it is a shame for you to confess that you build your faith upon the authority of the Fathers, or practise of the Church, be it never so ancient; I hope the fathers builded not upon other Fathers that were their ancients, but upon the infallible word of God, and what should ail us, that we may not use that means the Fathers used before us? you may talk long enough of Fathers and traditions, and your top gallant [Church of Rome,] as though no one Father said any thing for us, yet when you have all done, you must give us leave, ot we will take leave to found our faith and religion upon the written word of the Almighty.  
Thus is your Popish fellows Rhetoric come to small effect, and therefore he will now try what his Logic can do. Thus I argue, saith he, to the utter overthrow of your interpretation; how, I pray you? marry you shall hear, if Christ give authority of building and losing only to his disciples, and their successors, then cannot preaching be that building and losing, why so man? because a learned lay man may bind and loose in that sense, as well as an ignorant and unlearned minister, what is this I hear? may a lay man preach the word? or any ignorant and unlearned minister either? we allow no such blind preachers, as you do Priests, 
Rom. 10, 15. Hebr. 5, 4.  and Paul excludeth the laity from preaching when he saith, how shall they preach, except they be sent? And again, no man taketh honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron, but mark this arguing a little better, preaching forsooth cannot be binding and losing, because a learned lay man is able to preach, and may not a learned lay man bind and loose too, as formally as your popish Priests? you will say no, because he is not authorized so to do by the Church, and I say again, that he hath as good right to bind and loose, as to preach the Gospel, and therefore our papist must look out some new premises, if ever he look to have good of his conclusion.  
Harding, one of the captains of his host, saith, that if remitting sins consist in pronouncing and denouncing of the Gospel, every lay man, yea women, 
Cont. Apolog. Cap. 6. Diuis. 2.  yea young boys & girls may assoil sinners, yea every man may assoil himself, but these fellows never look at the order of their own Synagogue, where an old wife, or a young girl is authorized to baptise, and so consequently to remit sins: the Church of Rome oftentimes rolleth up the power of the keys in a bull of lead, and sends it abroad to seek his fortune by a lay pardoner, yet make they no doubt but remission of sins is annexed unto it; but if we say, as Christ saith, 
Math. 23, 13. & Luk. 11.52  woe be to them that take away the key of knowledge, and so shut up the kingdom of heaven that they that would enter, cannot come in; this forsooth must needs be far fetched, and the literal sense will not bear it.  
But what should a man spend his leisure with such untoward and insensible triflers, that will needs authorize the Pope to pardon the souls of the dead, for not performing bodily penance? we hold, saith he, that the Pope hath power to release, altar, or mitigate temporal penance, both in the life time of the party, and also after his death; if any of his penance be unperformed, and so our souls must fast bread and water, they must repent in sackcloth and ashes, they must whip themselves like jesuits, and shed tears, and wring their hands, and lie upon the cold ground, and go barefoot and barelegd, and such like, if it please not the Pope's holiness to release them: but by your Pope's leave, I had rather believe the voice of God from heaven, that tells me, that such as die in the Lord are blessed, and rest from their labours, at the least wise they must needs rest from corporal penance. Cardinal Allens learned discourse is answered long ago, and the answer hath meat, drink, and lodging among you without contradiction; but let Allen and all his fellow Cardinals say what they can, yet this I am sure off, the Pope can have no power over any of the dead, but only Gods chosen, for reprobates are beyond his reach, 
Rom: 8.33.38 39  of the chosen, thus saith Saint Paul, who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that justifieth, who shall condemn? and a little after, I am persuaded, saith he, that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ jesus our Lord.  
But to let this pass, if it be demanded, what cause the Pope hath to pardon that which the dead cannot be charged withal, what will or can any papist possibly answer? he that is charged with four, or five, or two years penance, or less, if he be prevented by untimely death, must either be discharged, or else be punished for not doing that he cannot do, which himself a while a go thought to be absurd; if it be said that in this case God punisheth not for omission of penance, but for the sin for which penance was enjoined, 
Mar. 2.7. & Luk. 5.21.  and not done: then the Pope must be said either to forgive that which cannot be required, and that's folly; or else the sin which remained unsatisfied, and that's blasphemy.  
Yet notwithstanding this blasphemy is rise among papists, 
Contr. Apol. cap. 6. divis. 2. Math. 9.2.6. Luk. 7.48.  howsoever this fellow here would feign hide it; as the son of man, saith Harding, remitted sins to him that was sick of the Palsy, & to Marie Magdalen; even so he hath transferred the same power unto Priests: and again, sins are released by the power of the keys in the Sacrament of penance, to the benefit of them that after baptism be relapsed and fallen into sin again, of which power, 
Apol. cap. 6. divis. 1. De author. eccles. & council. supr. & contr. scripture.  no Christian doubteth, unless he be a Novatian heretic; And again, the Novatians were condemned by the Church, because they denied that Priests in the Church had authority to remit sins, and so denied the Sacrament of penance: Cardinal Cusan, Haec ligandi & soluendi potestas non minor est in ecclesia, quàm in Christo, This power of binding and losing, is no less in the Church, than in Christ. Your own Cardinal 
a In his Book of Priesthood.  Allen saith, that the Pope forgiveth sins properly. And Pope julius, 
julius Concil. tom. 1. de primate. Rom. eccles.  Habet sacrosancta Romana ecclesia potestatem, singulari sibi priviligio concessam, aperire & claudere ianuas regni caelestis quibus volverit, The holy Church of Rome hath by a special prerogative power granted unto it, to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, to and against whom it will. Wherefore, if the case be so plain as this papist seems to make it, why do they not make us a new expurgatory Index, that may blot out these, and many more such saucy seazing upon the Lords own peculiar, out of their books? No, no, howsoever they face out the matter, yet are they the sons and heirs of those priests that Jerome speaks off, 
In Math. cap. 16.  who thought they had power to absolve the wicked and condemn the innocent, and were wont to say even in Saint Austin's time, Nos sanctificamus immundos, 
August. de fide & oper. ca 14  nos iustificamus impios, nos petimus, nos impetramus, We sanctify the unclean, we justify the ungodly, we ask, we obtain.    

The Dialogue. Sectio XXVII.  
ANd here will I make and end, referring that which hitherto hath been spoken, to your better censure and further consideration; whereupon if you shall rest resolved that you have rightly described the Church of Christ, and that you are also a member of the same; yet 
a No such matter, it is but the vanity of your conceit.  must you be enforced to grant, that all the ancient fathers before mentioned, were heretics, and that so was also that universal Church whereof they make mention so often in their writings, 
b Paul saith, that Antichrist doth sit in the temple of God, and therefore no marvel though his seat were always in preparing in the Church.  wherein the said heretical and papistical doctrine was taught and practised: but let us admit, although it be most false that there was in the world such a Church as you have 
c We go by truth, not by imagination.  imagined, for the first 300 years next altar Christ, and that these ancient fathers and doctors with their adherents did afterward eclipse that clear light of the Gospel which shined in those first 300. years; yet how can we imagine that the Church of Christ (which was endowed with so many gifts of the holy Ghost, and which ever flourished and increased most amidst the tortures of so many heathen Emperors) could upon 
d We do not imagine so, for the kingdom of Antichrist was not erected upon a sudden, but by l●tle and little irremarkeably, as weeds use to grow among th● good co●ne.  a sudden be so utterly quailed and extinguished by these heretical doctors, as that no member thereof should once take pen in hand in defence of the truth against their heresies? or how can we 
e Who bids you imagine so, but your Synagogue lay hidden till Antichrist was d sclosed. 2. Thes. 2.3.  imagine that the Church of Christ should for the space of 1300. years lie hidden in so secret corners of the world, as that none of the said papistical doctors (who wrote against all those, by the name of heretics, which held any doctrine contrary to that which they 
f The ancient fathers never termed such as you be Catholics, nor your doctrine Catholic.  termed Catholic) could hear of them? or that in all that time, no general Council (who were gathered together from all parts of the world) should receive intelligence 
g No Chur h had any being then, but ours only.  of the being of your mathematical Church professing christianity in so far different a manner? which if either any of the said doctors, or any of those general Counsels had done, 
h Non sequitur.  we should have heard of them in the Catalogue of heretics, or have found their opinions condemned by some general counsels: so soon as Aerius arose and denied prayer for the dead etc. he was 
i Full simply, and full little to your credit, but single men such as Epiphanius was in this case, have no authority to dub heretics.  confuted by Epiphanius, and afterward by S. Austin; when the real presence was 
k It was impugned 200 nay 500 years and odd, before your Lateran counsels.  first impugned, the first authors thereof were condemned by the Council of Laterane, and so of other of your opinions, as they sprang up in latter years; but a Protestant religion, such as is now established in England, was never heard of in the world before king Edward's time, neither hath that religion at this day any being in the world 
l A foul untruth without either ga●d or welt.  but in England only: And Puritany, such 
m They profess no such matter.  as profess to be of a church which holdeth no doctrine but such as is warranted by scripture, never had nor yet hath any being in the world, so that it is 
n This fellow seems not to know what religion and Church is.  a religion, and a church, as yet in imagination only, for although Puritans you 
o have cause to love them the better, for in so doing, they resemble you Papists.  do violently and ridiculously wrest the scripture for proof of every point of their doctrine: yet do they hold many things not warranted by scripture, as before I have sufficiently proved. There was never heresy in the world, but you shall read when it first sprang up, how it grew and increased, and when it was cut down and withered away; you shall never 
p you may read in Paul when it first sprang, and when it shallbe cut down, 2. Thes. 2, 7, 8  read when the catholic religion first sprang, it hath for these 1300. years (by 
q We confess no such matter.  your own confession) increased and flourished, it hath been confirmed by infinite miracles, and watered with the blood of millions of Martyrs, and therefore the way that leadeth and directeth unto the catholic religion, is 
r But by your leave, we must doubt of it, or rather be out of doubt it is not.  no doubt, the way whereof the Prophet Esay speaketh, saying, And there shall be a path, and a way, and it shall be called the holy way, and it shall be to you so direct and plain, as fools shall not be able to err therein. Contrariwise you shall 
s In the Bible.  read when and where your doctrine first sprang up, who were the fathers thereof, and it hath been 
t The more to blame they that did it.  cut so oft as it hath revived; so oft as any branch thereof hath sprung up, it hath been confuted and condemned by general Counsels, and is registered in the Catalogue of latter heresies: you can show no succession of bishops, no miracles, no 
u These be stolen prattlements of no weight, beseeming such vain janglers.  martyrs, nor name any one member of your Church, before john Caluin; for although Wickliff, Husse, and Luther, with the Waldenses, and certain other condemned heretics of Armenia and Grecia did jump with you in some of your opinions, yet was none of them either Protestant or Puritan, and so none of your Church, and therefore the way that leadeth to your Church, is not that direct and plain way whereof the Prophet speaketh, but rather an inexplicable Labyrinth, wherein there is 
x We have the holy word of God to give us light, and to guide us, & cursed be he that looks for better direction, Amen.  no light, no path, no compass or guide to direct your course.  

The Answer.  
Here this man would make an end, if he could tell how, but his conscience telling him that his discourses are weak and insufficient, he would feign fortify them with a little general talk propounded and answered long ago: 
Sect. 5. & alibi.  and therefore, though it be needless to keep down a dead Carcase with any new answer, unless he could blow life into it with some new defence; yet somewhat more would be added in this place, for the repressing of popish insolency. First therefore, where it is disputed, that if our description of the Church be right, than the ancient Fathers were heretics, and the universal Church heretical; I am content this sequel be judged by that which hath been already disputed: if every disagreement from truth must needs be heresy, 
Gal. 2.11. etc. Act. 15.39. Act. 11.2. etc.  then either Paul or Peter was an heretic, and so was either Barnabas or Paul, who were so stirred the one against the other, that they parted asunder. Peter was chidden of the Church of jewrie, for communicating to the Gentiles; yet the Church was deceived, and not Peter: 
1. Co. 3, 12.13  every error is not an heresy, and every one that builds timber, hay, or stubble upon the foundation, is not an heretic, and therefore this lose talk is little worth.  
Yea, but let us admit, saith he, that there was such a Church, as you imagine, in the first three hundred years after Christ, though it be most false: nay, you must admit it maugre your head, neither is it false ever the sooner with a merry word; prove it to be false, and we will be as far from either admitting it, or imagining it as yourself; but so long as you use such a general defence, as they of Sodom and Gomorrha, and the Cities adjoining might have used against Lot, the Canaanites against Abraham, and the old world against Noah and his family; there is no cause why such goodly shows of antiquity should control God's truth; if Lot, Abraham, and Noah had been ruled by prescription of time, by multitude, by authority of Princes, by traditions of Elders, or by any thing else in the world, but Gods own mouth, they had been as Sodom, and like to Gomorrha: and yet for all that, Peter the head Patron of Rome, as you say, and the jews that depended upon him, played the hypocrites together, and Barnabas a good man, full of the holy Ghost and faith, 
Act. 11.24.  was led away with them to the same hypocrisy; and though the scripture testify of Lot, that he was a just man, 
Gal. 2.13.  and that his righteous soul was vexed from day to day with the uncleanly conversation of the wicked: yet, by your leave, 
2. Pet. 2.7.8,  the prostitution of his daughters, his drunkenness, and incest, 
Gen. 19.8.31. etc.  do plainly evince, that he was somewhat tainted with the sins of Sodom.  
Yea, but Sodom was not the Church of God, neither was there any Christian Church established, when Peter and his company played the hypocrites. Well, Let that be granted, yet my reason is so much the stronger, for if Strangers from God, and young Novises in religion prevailed so much, that the one drew Lot, the other Peter and Barnabas to do things not convenient, how much more may the usual slips, and falls, and infections of Christian Churches work the like inconveniences in the Fathers and guides of the same! we do not imagine that the Church of Christ was utterly quailed and extinguished upon a sudden, for that's more than the gates of hell shall ever be able to bring to pass; but this we say, and are sure, that the mystery of iniquity did work in Paul's time, and fell not a sleep as soon as Saint Paul was dead, waking again 600. 
2. Thes. 2.7.  years after when this mystery was disclosed, for Rome was not built in a day, or upon a sudden, and the Master builders of it are none of the seven Sleepers, and therefore no marvel though perusing Counsels, Fathers and Stories from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Pope's feet here and there scatteringly, and so perceive how he went on, and grew to the fullness of the age of Antichrist.  
Neither is it prejudicial to God's clear truth faithfully registered in the word of God, that none took pen in hand to defend it against Antichrist: for the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, 
Revel. cap. 2.14.15.20.  though they were Gods faithfully Ministers, yet do we not read, that either they or any of their fellows and friends wrote or spoke any thing against Baalamites, and Nicholaitans, and the false prophecies of jesabel that infected their Churches. 
Epist. 119. ad januar.  Austin saith, Multa huiusmodi propter nonnull trum vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda, liberiùs improbare non audeo, I dare not freely as I should, improve many scandals of this kind, because of some either holy or troublesome persons that favour them; and therefore no marvel though the religion of Antichrist, being a compound heresy of many simples, grew on soft and fair, and plodded still forward by little and by little without any resistance, till the time came it should be disclosed: if the light of truth had been suddenly eclipsed, the ancient Fathers and their adherents, would have laboured to restore it; but this eclipse growing slowly by small pieces, they knew not the deepness of Satan, 
Revel. 2.24. Math. 13.25. etc.  and so gave the tars of Antichrist leave to grow so long among the wheat, till they were past weeding; nevertheless look the preface of Calvin's Institutions to the French King, and there you shall find the testimonies of Acacius, Spiridion, Ambrose, Austin, Epiphanius, Gelasius, Chrysostome, Calixtus, Cyprian, Apollonius, Paphnutius, and others, against outward braveries, abstinence from flesh, monkish idleness, painted Images, suffrages for the dead, transubstantiation, the half communion, unwritten determinations, set fastings, forbidding marriage, man's weak judgement, and such like flowers of antichrist's garland: and if these had said nothing, yet there were many other Fathers besides these, and whether they took pen in hand, and wrote more fully against the several branches of Popery as they grew, it were hard to tell, yet may we affirm it with as good probability, as you may deny it, howsoever it be, the wisdom of God having so decree to punish our unthankfulness: the doctrine of Rome, 
Revel. 17.9.  which is the seat of Antichirst, grew and increased a long time, but thanks be to God, it is now in such a consumption as eats up the flesh of it, 
2. Thes. 2.8.  and we have sufficient warrant that it shall be abolished.  
Neither is this increase and multiplication of error, till it conquer sincerity and truth, and break forth into open absurdities, so strange a matter in the Church of God. Thus you may read in the Valentine Council, 
In proemio.  Quorundan patrum utilis fuit & religiosa suggestio retractandi de his, quae nec recipere possumus ob ecclesiae sanctitatem, nec tamen usquequaque consuetudinis causa damnare, ita enim per omnes ecclesias eiusmodi vitiorum germen inolevit, ut ad plena remedia non facilis sit recursus, Profitable and religious is the motion of certain Fathers, concerning retracting those things, which because of the holiness of the Church, we may not receive, and yet by reason of custom dare not condemn, for such a seed of vices hath grown by custom in all Churches, that now we have no easy recourse to a full remedy. Again, 
Can 1.  Fratrum nostrorum vel imperitiam, vel simplicitatem, vel etiam presumptionem damnare non possumus, nec per omnes ecclesias quae sunt iam pridem male gesta corrigere, We cannot condemn either the unskilfulness, or simplicity, or (if ye will) presumption of our brethren, nor correct all the things that have been of late badly done in all Churches. Again, Quod pravae consuetudinis vitio ab Hispaniensibus Episcopis factum est, ita reprehendimus, ut propter numerum corrigendorun, 
Innocen prim. Epist 24 add S nod. Tolet: cap. 1.  ea quae quo quo modo facta sunt non in dubium vocemus, sed Dei potius iuditio dimittamus, That which was done by the Bishops of Spain, through the corruption of evil custom, we so reprove, that because of the number of them that be to be corrected, we call not in question the things that were disorderly done, but leave them to the judgement of God. And again, Mens potentiae avida, 
Leo primus ad Anathol. Constant. Epist. 51  nec abstinere novit à vetitis, nec gaudere concessis, dum inordinato pravoque progressu impunitarum transgressionum augentur excessus & crebrescunt culpae, quae toleratae sunt studio fidei reparandae & amore concordiae, A mind that is greedy of advancement, knoweth neither how to abstain from things forbidden, nor how to use well things that are granted, whilst excesses are increased and faults multiplied, through the inordinate and wicked proceeding of transgressions unpunished, which were tolerated of a desire of repairing the faith, and love of concord. Thus may you see, that good men and worthy Fathers of God's Church, by bearing with small matters for the common peace and welfare of the Church, did so multiply absurdities, that in the end, they might cast their caps at them, sooner than repress them, & withal you may see what Fathers Popery is an adherent unto, namely, such as the Valentine Council, Pope Innocent and Leo speak of; as for the former ages of the Church, Bishop jewel in the defence of the Apology & Challenge, hath so uncased the face of Antichrist that hide itself under the vizard of Fathers and Counsels, that none of the Pope's Adherents, ever went about to cover it with any answer.  
Moreover, whereas this fellow relies so much upon antiquity, as if the ancient Fathers were flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, why doth not he, or some of his idle companions take Master Foxes book in hand, where the substance of all antiquity is orderly set down, 
Apoc. 17.5.6.  and the whole glory and power of his Babylon, that is drunken with the blood of Saints and Martyrs, utterly defaced? I have heard that there is an answer abroad called, [The hunting of the Fox,] but such lusty unmarried Priests as be so well fed and fatted here in England, are fit to haunt I wot what, than to hunt such a Fox as he is to any great purpose: it may well be nibbled at, like a great chase among mice, but I persuaded, that Papist lives not at this day, that either hath, will, or can afford it a full answer. But to return to this fellow that prates so of Fathers and Counsels, as though they were all in his bosom, let it be observed how cunningly he takes that for granted, which neither he, nor any man else living is able to justify, [let us admit, saith he, that the ancient Fathers and Doctors with their adherents did eclipse the clear light of the Gospel, which shined in the first 300. hundred years.] Again, how can we imagine [that the Church of Christ, for the space of 1300. years lay hidden in so secret a corner, that none of the Doctors could hear of it?] Again, how it can be [that in all that time no general Counsel should have intelligence of the being of the Church that professed Christianity in so different a manner?] And again, if any of the Doctors, or any general Council had heard of them, they had been put in the Catalogue of heretics, and their opinions condemned: all this silly Sophistry called petitio principij, for we neither will, nor do, nor ever did grant, that the Fathers eclipsed the light of the Gospel, or that the Church in their time lay hidden in secret corners, or that no general Council had intelligence of it: these things our Pettyfogging-Papist is feign to beg, and to take as granted, because he can no more prove any one of them, than he can eat a load of logs. No, no, the Fathers were members of God's Church, and so were, and are we: as for Popery, what is it else but a certain scum, and froth, that seethes out of the liquor of the ancient Fathers, which the Scripture hath taught us to cast into the fire.  
And here let me set you down Doctor whitaker's words, 
Answer to Reinolds, cap. 6.  that such blind Sophisters as have not seen them in his Book, may see them here, and be ashamed: the mystery of iniquity, saith he, which in Papistry is fully finished, began to work in the Apostles age, and so continued still forward in the Father's days, until it came to his height and perfection in the Kingdom of Popery; they slipped a little, you are fallen headlong into the pit; they were overseen through infirmity, you are blind of malice; they scattered some darnel in the Lord's field, you have plucked up by the roots the good corn; they suffered loss of this building, being not agreeable with the foundation, yet are saved; you overthrow the foundation itself, and therefore cannot in this opinion be saved. Again, the ancient Fathers holding the ground and foundation of Doctrine, did oftentimes build thereon stubble and straw, partly by some superstitious opinions which themselves conceived of such inventions, and partly by the sway & violence of custom, whereby they were carried to a liking of those things, which they saw commended and practised by others, & yet God forbidden that because of some errors which they held, we should raze their names out of the Calendar of God's Saints, or think otherwise than reverently of them. Again, though they erred, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers; were not the Apostles holy men when they dreamt of an earthly Kingdom in this world? were they void of holiness, when they believed that the Gospel was to be preached to the jews only? Many holy Fathers were infected with the error of the Chiliasts, who notwithstanding are worthily accounted Saints of God; Cyprian and many godly Bishops with him erred about the baptism ministered by heretics, yet lost they not for all that the opinion and name of holy Fathers, etc. Again, the case of the Galatians is the same with yours, for as they thought to be justified by the works of the law, so do you; as they were warned of their error, so are you; as they without repentance lost the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, so shall you: if the Fathers had been as often and plainly admonished as you have been, they would being holy and sincere men, have reform their judgement, and keeping the head, though they erred in some part, the Lord will not impute that error unto them. And again, they erred not so wilfully as you, and therefore we account not of them as of you who have multiplied your errors, and left almost no one ground of pure religion unshaken.  
This is a sufficient answer to such beggarly petitioners▪ yet his mouth will not be stopped, till we show some of the Popish revolts from Gods ancient truth, to the several heresies whereof Popery consisteth. To this end therefore, we may remember the double condemnation of Eustathius in two several counsels, 
Socrat. Hyst. lib. 2, cap. 33.  Casaria, and Gangra, for such Catholic Articles as run currant among Papists at this day; as for example, forbidding to marry, abstinence from meats, sundering men from their wives, and servants from their Masters, under colour of Religion, abhorring the blessing and communion of a married Priest, and such like articles, as were condemned, most of them, of all Churches under heaven 200. years before Eustathius was borne, for thus writes Apollonius a Martyr, 
Euseb. hystor. lib. 5. cap. 16.  speaking of the heretic Montanus, Hic est qui coniugia dissoluere docuit, ieiuniorum leges praescripsit, qui Pepuzam ac Tinium modicas civitates Phrygiae, jerusalem vocavit, ut cunctos undique ad illas congregaret, qui pecuniarum exactores constituit, qui sub pretextu & nomine oblationum numerum captationem artificiosè concutus est, qui salaria doctrinae praedicatoribus subministravit, ut per ventris studium doctrina ipsius invalesceret, This is he which dissolved marriages, prescribed laws of fasting, which called Pepuza and Tinium two little Cities of Phrygia, jerusalem, that he might gather men from every place thither, which appointed exactors of money, which under the pretence and name of offering, did cunningly devise to get gifts, who ministered stipends to the preachers of his doctrine, that so for his bellies sake, his doctrine might be every where declared. The same Father and Martyr saith, that his Prophets and Martyrs did extort money, not only from the rich, but also from the poor, even widows and Orphans; Martion and Appelles forbade marriage, as appeareth in Tertullian; The manichees were condemned first by Pope Leo, and then by Gelasius, as the first Fathers of communicating under one kind; 

De prescrip. ad haeret. Serm. 4. de quadrag. In decret pontiff. distinct. in cap. comperimus.  
In Catalogue. dogm. Manich. lib. de anima, in fine Dialog. 2. Contra Eutyc. Can. 36. Haeres. 70.   The same heretics were the Fathers of monkish idleness, and therefore Epiphanius calls them, Desidentes vespae, & nihil operantes, etc. Idle Wasps, and doing no work. The Doctrine of Purgatory was first recommended to Tertullian by the paraclet of Montanus. The heretic in Theodoret's dialogues saith, as the Papists do, Symbola dominici corporis & saguinis, post invocationem sacerdotis, mutantur & alia fiunt, The Symbols of the Lords body and blood, after the invocation of the Priest, are changed and made other things. And Pope Gelasius tells the heretic Eutiches, Non desinit esse substantia panis, & naturavini, There ceaseth not to be the substance of bread, and the nature of wine. The Counsel of Eliberis enacted, that that which is worshipped, should not be painted upon walls, thereby condemning Popish Imagery. Epiphanius faith of the Audians, 
* They use great store of Apocryphal writings. Epiphanius haeres. 46. 47. 61. etc. De preser. advers. haeret. & libro de baptis. in fine. Euseb. hystor. lib. 3. cap. vlt. & lib. 2. cap. 15. De prescript. advers. haeret. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. & 24 & lib. 3. cap. 2 Canus lib 3. cap. 3. fund. 4. Bellarm. de verb. non script. lib. 4. cap. 8.  Vtuntur Apochryphis multis abunde. The Tatians, the Eucratifes, the apostolics, and such like heretics, were the first founders of single life, and being so highly esteemed, it took hold in time upon the Church. women's baptism which is currant in Popery, came first from heretics wives, of whom Tertullian saith, that they were Procaces, audentes docere, contendere, exercismos agere, curationes repromittere, forsitan & tingere, Malapert, such as boldly took upon them to teach, to contend, to exercise, such as promised to cure diseases, and perhaps also to baptise. Papias a Chiliast was the first father and founder of Traditions, and Peter's primacy, or Romish Episcopalitie. Tertullian and Irenaeus tell us that heretics held the Apostles did not reveal, Omnia omnibus, sed quaedam palàm & universis, quaedam secretò & paucis, All things to all men, but some things openly, and to all, some things secretly, & to a few; as namely, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Martion, Carinthus. And this is the opinion of Papists at this day.  
This is sufficient for a taste, that thereby you may judge how toothsome Popery is, that consisteth of these, and many other such roots of bitterness: And that you may be yet better informed how the good corn of true religion may be overgrown with the weeds of popish errors and heresies, and yet in time get the victory again, and overmaister them; 
Cap. 2: 19  the Church of Thyatira so highly commended in the Revelation, may be a plain document unto us; which though it seemed to be evacuated by the Cataphrygian heresy: 
Epipha. haeres. 51.  yet a hundred years after, the Church revived again and multiplied, and so by God's mercy conquered the woman jezabel and her heretical Prophets, & even so it fareth with the Church of God in general, for howsoever it pleased God for the punishment of our sins to give Antichrist leave by little and little to grow to such a height, that at length he ouer-shadowed and over-dropped all truth, and sincerity: yet, when God saw his time, he began to raise up such worthy men as lopped off his branches, 
Daniel. 4.  and shook off his leaves, and scattered his fruit, and so continueth, and will continue to execute his judgements upon that man of sin, that in the end he will not leave so much as the stumps of his roots in the earth.  
Touching Puritanie, which still this fellow quarrels withal, when he can prove it to be either a Church, or a Religion by itself, we will shape him an answer; in the mean time, let him know that no Protestant in England, or out of England, holds any doctrine necessary to salvation, but such as is warranted by Scripture, neither are we left wholly to ourselves in matters of discipline, to appoint what we think good, 
Rom. 14.23. 1. Cor. 14.26.40.  but are guided by the general rules of God's word, how to behave ourselves in the house of God: as for wresting the Scripture, when any of you all can justify, that the most witless Puritan in England, doth wrest them more violently and ridiculously, than yourselves, then will I be a Protestant no longer. You Papists, though your brawls be endless one with another, Canonists against Schoolmen; Franciscans against Dominicks; Nominals, against Reals; Thomas against Lombard; Scotus against Thomas; Occam against Scotus; Alliacensis against Occam; Peter Sot against Catharine; Catharine against Caietan; Caietan against Pighius; jesuits against Priests; and Priests against jesuits: yet forsooth these dogs & cats are of one Cage, they are all members of the Romish Church, but Protestants and Puritans being divers names that differ not in the grounds of faith, but in small points, as Richard and Thomas, or john and james, do in colour and complexion and countenance, they forsooth cannot be both members of the same Church.  
But what should I spend time with such a prater, as dares face us out, that such a Religion as is now established in England, was never heard of in the world before King Edward's time? I am sure there is no other Religion established in England, but that which is clearly taught in the word of God, brought hither first by Simon 
a Nicephor. lib. 2. cap 4.  Zelotes, joseph 
b Ghildas.  of Arimathea, Saint 
c Theodor. de cur. graecor. affect. lib. 9  Paul the Apostle, all of them, or some of them & watered still on in the days of 
d Lib contra judaeos.  Tertullian, 
e In Ezec. ho. 4  Origen, 
f Apolog. secunda.  Athanasius, 
g Initio lib. de Synod. contra Arian.  Hilary, 
h Homil. quod Christus sit Deus adverse. gentle.  Chrysostome, 
i Hyst. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 10. & lib. 4. cap. 3  Theodoret; all which ancient Fathers speak honourably of the Church, and Religion, and Prelates of Britain. Now whether this Church, and this Religion so planted, and so watered, were the same that was restored and established in the happy days of King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth, both Princes of blessed memory; it is so clearly decided in the written word of God, that the crying and yelling of our forlorn Papists, shall never be able to persuade the contrary.  
Yea, but Aerius you know, as soon as he denied prayer for the dead, was confuted; and the first that impugned the real presence, was condemned in the Council of Lateran, and so were other of your opinion as they sprang up in later years. This man, you see, will not give over as long as he can say any thing; but go too, let us not think much to answer these trifles, Aerius indeed denied prayer for the dead, if Epiphanius mistake not the matter; yet I deny that he understood such kind of praying for the dead, as the Popish Church useth at this day: Papists pray for the release of venial offences punishable in Purgatory, but Aerius spoke against the common error of his time, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  namely, that the forgiveness of incurable sins might be procured to the dead by the prayers of the living; if this be heresy, then be you heretics yourselves. Touching the real presence, 
Bertram.  it is well known, that Bertram wrote against it without any man's contradiction, 400. years before the Counsel of Lateran. 
Aelfricus.  And so did Aelfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, almost 200. years after Bertram, in a Sermon which was yearly read in our Churches at the feast of Easter. As for the time that followed in later years, after the Lat eran Council; we say of it, 
Luk. 22.53.  as our Saviour doth of the like time, [This is your very hour, and the power of darkness.]  
Thus have I showed you briefly, but sufficiently, when the great compound heresy of Popery first sprang, how it grew piece by piece till Antichrist was disclosed, 
2. Thes. 2.8.  I have told you also, how it hath been consumed by the breath of God's mouth, and when it shall be cut down and whither. As for Miracles and Martyrs, 
Cath. 7.22. & 24, 24. 2. Thes. 2.9. & Apoc. 16.14.  the one proveth you to be th● brood of Antichrist, of whose lying wonders the scripture hath foretold us; the other, namely, God's Martyrs, they cry out for vengeance against bloodsuckers, for so we are taught in the Revelation, and such bloodsuckers are you, and have ever been, as Master Fox hath most truly set it down to your everlasting shame and confusion: such Miracles as yours be, we can show none, neither can we make Martyrs, as you can; God give us all grace to keep that way and path, that leadeth and directeth to the Kingdom of heaven; and grant us rather good Bishops without succession, than succession without good Bishops, that all of us, both Bishops and people, high and low, rich and poor, one with another may glorify God the Father of our lord jesus Christ. So be it.  jerem. Cap. 49.10. 
I have discovered Esau, I have uncovered his secrets, and he shall not be able to hide himself.  Tertul. de prescript. adversus heretic. 
Haereses de quorundam infirmitatibus habent quod valent, nihil valentes, si in bene valentem fidem incurrant.     


Paraeneticum carmen Authoris, ad Magistrum▪ I. S.  
SI cupis ad superos per inania tecta domorum  
Altius horrendo scandere cum sonitu:  
Consule Papistas hominum immanissima monstra,  
Qui scandendi alium non didicêre modum.  
O scelus infandum, nùm crudo sanguine pascit  
Italus ille suas Pontificaster oves?  
Siccine pascendum, vasto Polyphemus in antro  
Eructans saniem, quam bibit ante, docet?  
Siccine scandendum ad superos docet uncta meretrix,  
Quae tota innocuo mersa cruore rubet?  
O fuge, quid cessas? meretricia desere castra,  
Scandendique novam disce tenere viam.   

Eiusdem conclusio ad D. Doctorem Grimston medicum praestantissimum.  
SI quid in hoc fuerit lectoribus utile libro,  
Non mihi, sed cutae gratia danda tuae.  
Et liber, & libri dominus paulò ante redemptus,  
Libertus tuus est, desijt esse suus.  
Mortis serva tuo fit libera vita labore;  
Libera vita tuo facta labore tua est.  
Vivo igitur, vivoque tuus, vivamque per omnem  
Quam dederas vitam, seu tua, seu mea sit.   
FINIS.